Linux-Advocacy Digest #179, Volume #30 Sat, 11 Nov 00 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
NT/2000 true multiuser? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Loren Petrich)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Loren Petrich)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Loren Petrich)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Loren
Petrich)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Loren Petrich)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (spam)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux & Motif ("Tim Cain")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: OS stability ("Les Mikesell")
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Disapointed in the election (Bob Hauck)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Disapointed in the election ("Mike")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:57:04 GMT
Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment? My impression is that
it is not. Comments?
sjfromm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:12:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:44:10 GMT,
> Loren Petrich, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
> > And taxation is specified by law, meaning that, by definition, it is
> >not theft.
> When the law specified slavery, was it not slavery?
So what?
And all the property-rights absolutists would have defended slavery
on the ground that ordering the slaves freed would have set a dangerous
precedent in the form of the government overruling property claims.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:14:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:44:10 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > That demonization of "government regulations" is silly.
> Tell that to a Jew who lived in Germany when hitler gained power..
So what? That's like saying that police brutality means that all
police forces ought to be disbanded. Or that military dictatorships
(hint, hint, Static66) mean that all military forces ought to be
disbanded.
> > Ah yes. That dirty word, "socialism".
> > And taxation is specified by law, meaning that, by definition, it is
> >not theft.
> AHH yes more of Lorens flawed logic. "it is the law therefore it must
> be just and right!"
Which is what you law-and-order types never tire of saying about
*your* favorite laws.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:16:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And when Hitler and Goebbels were conspiring to slaughter your
> relatives back in the old country, that was specified by law, too.
>
> Are you saying that, since it was specified by law, that it was not murder?
It was the death penalty :-)
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:17:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:51:58 GMT,
> Loren Petrich, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
[taxation...]
> > It's not confiscation, it's the law.
> being the law doesn't stop it being confiscation, remember, the Jews were sent
> off to camps, *legally* according to the law of the time and place, as were
> the
> Japanese Americans in 1942. The Gulags in the old USSR were legal, according
> to
> their legal system.
So what? You law-and-order types are always saying "the law is the
law is the law", except for laws that you dislike.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:22:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Nah. I think I'll just go down to a welfare office and set some
> > > explosives...to go off about 2:00PM when it's good and crowded full
> > > of both parasite welfare crack-whores and parasite welfare clerks.
> > And when you get caught, don't forget to do your best Ollie North
> > imitation. Let's see how much sympathy you can get.
> > And don't forget to write a book while in jail about what you wish
> > the US to be like. Let's see what to call it ... "My Struggle"?
> How about this one instead.
> "LOREN PETRICH
> The story of a frustrated highschool outcast, who, as an adult,
> now seeks the establishment of a totalitarian state so that he can
> get *revenge* on his former classmates"
Seems more like Mr. Kulkis himself.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:29:01 GMT
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:07:37 -0500, Matt Gaia
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>As far as problems with Windows go, well *starts snickering*, I probably
>shouldn't even go there. I'll just say that's it's included two full
>re-installs of 98 SE for various reasons, replacing a CMOS battery after
>2000 fried it, and my NT loader miraculously corrupting after installing
>2000 again.
An operating system fried your CMOS battery?
So much for your credibility :(
claire
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:33:18 GMT
In article <QeeP5.245274$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uhm09$j5g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <h0XO5.7562$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8uhahg$8oc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > But are these numbers meaningful? It seems to me that what
you're
> > > > really
> > > > > interested in is unexpected downtime,
> > > >
> > > > This is where you are VERY wrong! Down time even scheduled down
time
> > is
> > > > costly. The more I can get away from down time scheduled or
> > otherwise
> > > > the better.
> > >
> > > Downtime is costly, but unscheduled downtime is disasterous.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I would *MUCH* rather take a server down for regular
> > *HARDWARE*
> > > maintenance every so often, than risk a spontaneous failure, which
> > will
> > > leave my site unavailable and losses of data since the last
backup.
> >
> >
> > Of course you would, you run MS software. I would want to do the
same if
> > I ran that crap. I don't I run Unix or linux which is more robust
and
> > does not crash with every minor harware clitch the way MS does!
>
> Huh? I'm not talking about _any_ MS software here, nor am I talking
about
> X86 hardware. Our servers are purchased from a large, well established
> vendor. They all run a respected version of Unix. One of our primary
> concerns is reliability, of both hardware and software.
>
You claim to be running Unix, My ASERTATION is that Unix is better at
hadling FLAKY hardware. Drestin was laughing at a project that Linux
supporters are writing code to handle flawed memory chips! That would
mean these HARDWARE errors would NOT cause the OS to fail. Without this
code, the HARDWARE errors COULD cause the OS to fail. This means that a
WELL DEVELOPED OS can over come some problems CAUSED by HARDWARE. This
makes the OS more stable on a larger range of hardware, most noteably
the hardware that is of questionalbe quality. Unix is one OS that is
very good at overcoming minor hardware errors. Judging by the constatant
droaning of it's a hardware issue, that is NOT the case for MS OS!
> Contrary to your assertion, we have found that hardware failures
generally
> cause computer systems to stop. At that point, NT, DOS, Unix and Linux
are
> all equally reliable.
This is NOT true. Yes catastrophic failures cause the SAME problems for
all systems. But NOT all hardware problems are catastrophic. Memory
chips and CPU's can have errors that would cause poorly writen software
to halt. While software that is written to DEAL with minor errors would
continue to run. As shown in the example above Linux is working at
overcoming memory errors to make Linux a MORE STABLE system by
overcoming HARDWARE issues! All else being equal, the OS that can deal
with the most hardware errors without crashing WILL BE THE MOST STABLE
SYSTEM across the LARGEST range of hardware!
>
> -- Mike --
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:43:46 GMT
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:21:42 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>Well...eMbedded VB 3.0 and eMbedded C++ are free. Except for shipping and
>handling.
GNU tools are free too. And I can configure the same compiler and
libraries for dozens of different targets.
>>, it isn't smaller, and it isn't any easier to program for.
>
>It is if you use VB (the #1 programming language in the world)
Not for real-time and embedded systems it isn't. Can you write an
interrupt handler or device driver in VB? I honestly don't know.
VB might be useful for the GUI portion, if there is one, but there are
plenty of solutions that are far more portable and will work just as
well.
>Or C++
Huh? I can configure GNU C++ for dozens of embedded targets running
quite a number of different operating systems (or no OS at all).
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:38:04 -0800
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:11:15 -0800, "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:bl6P5.18721$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
>> > > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
>> >
>> > I'm so sorry. You are wrong. When you compare nix to win you gotta
>> compare lin
>> > to nt4 or w2k. Both have secure journaling file systems.
>>
>> I thought they only journal the metadata, not the file contents.
>
>Yes they journal the file contents.
>
NTFS does not journal the file contents.
>From the Win2k Res kit:
"NTFS is a recoverable file system. A user seldom needs to run a disk
repair program on an NTFS volume. NTFS guarantees the consistency of
the volume by using standard transaction logging and recovery
techniques. In the event of a system failure, NTFS uses its log file
and checkpoint information to automatically restore the consistency of
the file system. "
ie metadata
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:31:03 -0800
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:21:42 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >Well...eMbedded VB 3.0 and eMbedded C++ are free. Except for shipping and
> >handling.
>
> GNU tools are free too. And I can configure the same compiler and
> libraries for dozens of different targets.
Tell me about GNU VB.
>
>
> >>, it isn't smaller, and it isn't any easier to program for.
> >
> >It is if you use VB (the #1 programming language in the world)
>
> Not for real-time and embedded systems it isn't.
I won't argue real-time. My guess is the Microsft tools are used for the
vast majority of software on WinCE machines.
> Can you write an
> interrupt handler or device driver in VB? I honestly don't know.
>
> VB might be useful for the GUI portion, if there is one, but there are
> plenty of solutions that are far more portable and will work just as
> well.
I don't think portability is that import now that the Ipaq is huge hit and
SQL Server runs on WinCE devices.
------------------------------
From: "Tim Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & Motif
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 18:50:16 -0000
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:07:21 -0000, Tim Cain wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>I've been looking around for Motif development tools
>>(UIL compiler etc) for Linux with little success.
>>
>>Does anyone know of any resources out there, or has
>>Motif died the death in light of Lesstif, Gnome, Kdeetc?
>
>openmotif.org, it's still alive.
>
>However, the momentum and the innovation is all taking place within the
>Glib/Gtk/GNOME and Qt/KDE camps. I'd recommend going with one of these
>(both are very good IMO)
>
I hear what you're saying, but for me it *has* to be Motif.
- Work-related stuff, you understand...
Thanks for the pointer,
Tim.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:08:32 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uj0kg$viv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
> > protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
>
> Windows, in that regard, can allow much tighter control than linux.
> Check NTFS first.
>
I think you mean 'more arbitrary' control, not tighter. Linux makes
you map permissions into 3 sets which turn out to match most
real-world situations very well.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:22:07 GMT
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QeeP5.245274$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Huh? I'm not talking about _any_ MS software here, nor am I talking about
> X86 hardware. Our servers are purchased from a large, well established
> vendor. They all run a respected version of Unix. One of our primary
> concerns is reliability, of both hardware and software.
[...]
> The reason that most organizations perform routine maintenaince, and do
such
> things as replace disk drives while they're still working fine, is that
the
> probability of failure is in most cases an exponential function of time.
> This means that the probability of a given hardware component failing
> increases 7X for every 2X increase in time. To keep failure levels below
an
> acceptable threshold, hardware is upgraded, checked, or replaced on a
> regular basis.
It is not particularly difficult to find x86 equipment with hot spare/hot
swap
raid drives or standalone boxes with a variety of interfaces with that
capability. It is true that most PC hardware is built to be cheap, but
you can still buy reliability if you want. Even with your exponential
risk factor, a raid 5 array with a hot spare has to lose 3 drives before
you get one replaced to take you down, and since you don't have to
shut down for the replacement that can be a pretty small time window.
> Contrary to your assertion, we have found that hardware failures generally
> cause computer systems to stop. At that point, NT, DOS, Unix and Linux are
> all equally reliable.
But, if you have good filtered power you hardly ever lose anything but
disk drives, power supplies, and maybe a modem if anyone still uses
them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:27:36 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> BigA wrote:
> >
> > "the inherent problem that Microsoft maintained for all these
> > years that you are unable to boot a recovery floppy or CD to
> > go fix an NTFS problem."
> >
> > Guess you've never heard of the NT Emergency Recovery Disk?? I wonder,
have
> > you even used NT 4.0???
>
>
> Is this something that stays at the top of your CD stack?
Actually I have never seen one. When did it come out and where do you
get them. Our office has people who have configured NT boxes for
years and have had some training and they still install on a small FAT
partition.
In fact they just ran into trouble with a win2k box they set up the
same way (consistency??) when there was not enough room for service
pack 1 to install. I did know that the win2k install CD could be used
for recovery, though, so the FAT partition is no longer needed.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:43:48 GMT
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:44:35 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>ILOVEU & Melissa didn't mail any of your files to anyone.
No, but they mailed _themselves_. It would seem that mailing something
else would be relatively trivial.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:43:50 GMT
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:20:29 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[re: Hillary Clinton]
>I've yet to here a New Yorker happy about this!
>How in the name of God did she get elected?
The strongest opposing candidate got cancer.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:43:46 GMT
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:31:03 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:21:42 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >Well...eMbedded VB 3.0 and eMbedded C++ are free. Except for shipping
>> >and handling.
>>
>> GNU tools are free too. And I can configure the same compiler and
>> libraries for dozens of different targets.
>
>Tell me about GNU VB.
Why? Why don't you tell me what VB can do for my embedded projects.
It being "the #1 language" doesn't mean squat if it can't do what I
need to do.
>> >>, it isn't smaller, and it isn't any easier to program for.
>> >
>> >It is if you use VB (the #1 programming language in the world)
>>
>> Not for real-time and embedded systems it isn't.
>
>I won't argue real-time. My guess is the Microsft tools are used for the
>vast majority of software on WinCE machines.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, since WinCE
isn't realtime and isn't much of a player in embedded systems to start
with. But, please, don't let mere ignorance of the subject stop you
from advocating your MS solution de jour.
>> Can you write an
>> interrupt handler or device driver in VB? I honestly don't know.
I guess you don't know either, eh? The answer is kind of important for
the sort of embedded development I do. If VB can't do it, then it is
out. If somebody wants to write a GUI with it, fine, but it doesn't
seem to be good for much else afaict.
>> VB might be useful for the GUI portion, if there is one, but there are
>> plenty of solutions that are far more portable and will work just as
>> well.
>
>I don't think portability is that import now that the Ipaq is huge hit and
>SQL Server runs on WinCE devices.
Ipaq? SQL server? What does that have to do with anything? Maybe MS
could run SQL server on a cluster of 5,000 Ipaq's and get some really
impressive TPC numbers. And I still wouldn't care since I don't plan
on putting SQL server in the next multiplexer I build.
When I say "embedded development", I am not referring to pocket PC's or
Palm Pilots. I am referring to things like modems, routers, industrial
controllers, printers, TV sets, and so forth. Devices that have
software in them but whose primary purpose is to perform some specific
function.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:56:15 GMT
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:41:33 GMT...
> ...and Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8ucudo$ktr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > What I donot understand is all the wankers who stand out side
listening to
> > > al gore and bush crap on and on, then, chear and woohoo about it. Go
to
> > > anyother country and most voters would simply vote, and thats it!
Fuck,
> > look
> > > at Russia, no big parades and crap, people just simply voted! end of
> > story.
> > >
> > > javaduke
> >
> > A Russian friend once explained: "Vote? Of course I voted. It was
illegal
> > not to vote. The party official would want to know why you didn't vote,
and
> > you'd be in even more trouble. So, we voted. There was only one choice,
so
> > we voted for him. So we wouldn't get in trouble."
>
> Um, there's a difference between Russia and the Soviet Union.
> *Especially* between Russia today and the Soviet Union twenty years
> ago.
You're absolutely right: my choice of words wasn't very good - here in the
US we've used Russia and Soviet Union interchangably for many years. A few
years ago, that made more sense than it does today. What I should have said
was, "A Russian friend, who immigrated from the former Soviet Union..."
-- Mike --
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Nov 2000 13:04:57 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:vD%O5.75454$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yes, that's entirely correct. The use of Raw partitions have nothing
> > > > to do with database sizes. It's an issue of performance. However,
> > > > it must be said that you may not gain anything from raw partitons
> > > > at all. IIRC, Oracle has also been recommending the converse route, if,
> > > > for example, you are intending to set up Oracle on Sparc machines
> > > > running Solaris.
> > > >
> > > > The bottom line is: people can and do maintain >50 Gb databases
> > > > (Oracle or otherwise) under linux without dedicated partitions,
> > > > and thus, of course, Myers's comment is complete nonsense.
> > >
> > > Very few db, if any, keeps databases in one huge files.
> > > It's inefficent to do so.
> >
> > Just ask the computing department in my organization that runs
> > Microsoft Exchange. It stores all mail, calendar and related items
> > for everybody in one huge file.
> >
> > They came to us for help when it became corrupt. We had to use linux
> > and some open-source tools to dissect a bad backup tape.
>
> And you're blaiming your incompetent computer dept. operators on Exchange?
> They didn't do good backups, and now it's Exchange's fault?
Perhaps if Windows had a concept of a home drive, and the server
stored all their information in their own home space, then one bug
wouldn't take down everyone's mail/calendar/task lists. It is a bug
in Exchange, if you ask me -- and it speaks volumes for how people in
Redmond think.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
