Linux-Advocacy Digest #197, Volume #30 Sun, 12 Nov 00 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) ("Bruce
Schuck")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Gary Hallock)
Re: OS stability ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:26:51 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xWDP5.19557$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:6NcP5.7668$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > -Chad
>
> Which tool include with the Microsoft OS do you recommend for doing
> network backups and fixing corrupt tapes?
NTbackup works real good in Win2K.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:29:06 -0600
"James Hutchins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Remember how Motif became the darling and crowded out all of its
> competitors within very few years? Is that what will happen with GTK+ and
> Qt?
No, GTK+ and QT have different audiences. GTK+ is a C language API, while
Qt is a mostly C++ API (I say mostly because they have this weird macro
language you have to preprocess first).
There is a C++ wrapper for GTK+ called GTK--, but so far it hasn't seemed to
gain much acceptance. There are also several other C++ wrappers that use
GTK+ (wxWindows IIRC and a few others). This means that there will be quite
a war for quite some time over C++ useage of GTK+, while no such war exists
in the Qt world.
> I was about to switch from Motif to Qt, but have gotten advice from
> several sources suggesting Qt failed to get adopted as the darling of the
> unix community and GTK+ has succeeded, so Qt will not be around, or will
> be a hanger-on.
TrollTech seems pretty organized and Qt is a very nice framework. GTK+
seems more haphazard and less organized, and working in C++ requires a lot
of jumping through hoops.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:30:08 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:JuEP5.19597$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:dPjP5.9504$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > It is a bug in Exchange, if you ask me
> >
> > Exchange does more than just email. Besides, where does sendmail keep
it's
> > mail before the client downloads it? In each person's home drive? No, of
> > course not it keeps it in a central mail store until the user downloads
> > it via POP3 or IMAP
>
> Sendmail commits a copy to disk in a file by itself before replying to
> the sender that it has been accepted. Then it turns local delivery
> over to the local delivery program which is configurable of course.
> The usual configuration for local delivery on small systems stores
> each user's messages in a separate file under a common directory.
> This scales better than a single large file of course but still has
> limits. Medium sized systems often configure to make local delivery
> go to a file in the user's home directory, or each message in its own
> file under a directory there.
And I know from the Unix guys I used to work with that a couple of vigorous
discussions on an email list can totally choke a sendmail system. It
basically spends all it's time trying to keep up with all the thousands of
locations to write message to.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:21:15 GMT
In article <KKBP5.7785$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about
>
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.free-dvd.org.lu
>
> The 93 day max was clearly something screwy by looking at the graph,
it
> jumps from about 15 days to 93 days in one day then drops back down.
>
> An average of 13 days.
>
> Or this one:
>
NOT ONE as bad as BN. Ther is a range of skill sets and management Ideas
out in the world. a FEW may feel better rebooting no matter what (please
notice I said a few), A few may be incompitant. A FEW sites may have
other problems such as power. Others may building on the fly. The thing
about W2K is you have managed to find ONE site (with ONE server) that
gets into the Linux/Unix range and that server has not managed to make
it more that a day or two lately. Then you ignore the fact that most of
the sites are below the Linux/unix sites!
let's do some industry by industry comparisons:
And if you want to say it's because of scheduled maintenance, please
explain how barns and noble is scheduled maintenance!
book sellers:
Barns & Noble vs Amazon
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=www.bn.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.amazon.com
ISP:
Microsoft network vs. AOL
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.msn.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.aol.com
Hardware with preinstalled OS
dell vs Valinux:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=www.dell.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.valinux.com
Software
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.microsoft.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.redhat.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.caldera.com
These are NOT some sites that no one know about, THe site I have shown
are site that are, for the most part, Well known! AND I"M INCLUDING THE
COMPANY THAT MAKE THE CRUDDY STUFF!
>
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=decss.htmlplanet.com
>
> There are only 6 samples, but by looking at it, you can tell it's been
> rebooted a lot more than you can see on the chart because the graph
does not
> have a steady incline.
>
> and how about this site?
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=tuxrache.de.st
>
> 8 days average uptime.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:33:24 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RjFP5.14895
> > > Oh yes I forgot about that. However, you can't actually do a great
deal
> > can
> > > you? If you run notepad, it pops up as a window on the main screen!
> >
> > No, it doesn't. Try running an X program from a telnet login, what
> > happens?
>
> If you're not running a terminal server on NT, then notepad runs on the
> main screen, not where you're running the DOS prompt.
>
> On X you can redirect the display to your own screen, provided you're
> running an X server.
This argument is silly. I can just as easily turn it around and say:
"If you're not running an X server on Unix, then X apps don't run
On NT, the display is on your own screen, provided you're running a terminal
server and client"
Duh.
> I'm used to OpenVMS and DECWindows. We used to run terminals across X
quite
> happily. On a basic NT system (no extra software) you can't do anything
> like it, except have a DOS style prompt. You certainly can't run notepad
on
> one machine and display on another.
If you're running the equivelant of an X server (Terminal Services), you
can.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:34:11 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:REFP5.125927$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I take it that is the Microsoft's pretense of portability. Just
> > as warped as usual.
>
> Sounds pretty portable to me. Any machine with IE on it can be used to
> administer a Win2K server.
I hope you can't say that with a straight face.
> And when the agreement with Citirix runs out, there will be RDP clients
for
> all OS.
Won't it take some time for MS to add subtle defects to the non-MS
platforms to keep them from actually being usable?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:35:58 -0600
"Charles M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > >Telnet,
Windows 2000 Terminal Services, FTP, Remote Console (done locally)
> >and several others.
> >
> >They can all be done locally on the same machine without a network
> >connection using only local loopback.
> >
> I did try telnet (to the local machine) from win2000, but it doesn't
> give a logon prompt (that suprised me, but I've never tried a local
> telnet on win2000 before). I checked the telnet services properties
> and notice that logon properties defaults to 'Local System' account.
> There is a choice for setting a single account username/password, but
> that didn't seem to work for me (wouldn't connect at all). How would
> you use telnet to perform a su type command? (runas seems to be
> limited to a single command, not a complete login shell, so that
> doesn't seem to be what I'm after here).
Try to run cmd.exe with runas. Then the whole shell runs as that user.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:39:08 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZfFP5.19670$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I thought they only journal the metadata, not the file contents.
> > >
> >
> > I've heard this claim a bunch of times and am puzzled by it (I am not
> > an expert in file systems). What exactly would be the point of the
> > file system journaling the file contents? After all, as long as the
> > metadata is properly journaled, the file system can always be
> > recovered to a valid state in case of a crash. As for file contents, I
> > don't see how the file system can guarantee anything. For example, if
> > an app requires two file calls to save its data in a valid state, then
> > there's nothing the OS can do if a crash happens after the first call
> > but before the second. I suspect I'm missing something, though.
>
> The thing you are missing is that journaling does not mean you won't
> lose anything, it means that the operations are ordered so you can
> always recover to a consistent state. Journaling metadata means that
> the directory structure and free space tables are always consistent
> or at least recoverable even though any particular file's contents
> may not be correct. Journaling everything usually requires writing
> changes to a log, performing the real update, then clearing the log
> so that incomplete operations remain in the log and can be completed
> during recovery. Making this set of steps come close to the speed
> of non-journaled operations is non-trivial.
Sounds like NTFS does it.
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/6/70.ASP
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:38:33 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nXEP5.19654$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sure you do. Hard disks have mean times between failure. If you don't
> > change them prior to the MTBF you're risks go up exponentially, just
like
> > not changing your oil. Of course the MTBF on hard disks is quite high,
> but
> > that's taking into account that some drives fail after a week, some
after
> 10
> > years. Doing routine diagnostics will help you identify that.
>
> Don't your raid controllers let you see the error statistics and swap
drives
> without a shutdown? I think this is really all a ruse to excuse the fact
> that the OS won't stay up without periodic reboots to fix memory
> leaks.
Sure, but that's just one item. Routine maintenance should be conducted on
all parts in the system. Memory, Disk Controllers themselves, Power
Supplies, CPU's, motherboards, etc...
Unless you're buying a $1 million redundant system, this is the way things
go. And doing that completely voids the reason to use cheaper PC hardware
(compared to Mainframes) to begin with.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:37:53 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Oh, yes.
> If Whistler is as good from 2K as 2K is from NT & 98, then Linux\Unix has
a
> reason to be *really* afraid,
Note that what you are really saying here is how bad NT and 98 really are.
Not everyone is going to forget that - especially the people still
using them.
> and by the release of the system *after*
> whistler, I wouldn't be surprise if those a minority even on the server.
Also note that MS only improves things when they have to in response
to competition. If you really want them to produce a great system you
should be encouraging the competitors to force the issue.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:41:15 -0800
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:JgFP5.84353$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:26:24 GMT,
> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >I take it that is the Microsoft's pretense of portability. Just
> >as warped as usual.
>
> People who indoctrinate themselves into Microsoft's way
> of thinking do indeed develop some very odd notions. You will
> note these yourself as you observe the logic displayed by
> some MS users.
>
> Some common trends:
>
> 1. A database is a file.
Or a collection of files.
>
> 2. A portable application is one which can be easily
> carried from one Windows installation to another. This
> is what Bruce had in mind when he told me that Jet is
> the right choice for "easy portability".
Try emailing a user an Oracle database.
I can email my users an Access database.
>
> 3. An OS is something that runs on an x86.
I kind of like VMS too.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:40:34 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8un38j$fjc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But machines that have been up for years haven't been patched, and can
> be
> > identified as such quite easily now.
>
> But you have not proven that the NEED the patch! you have NOT proven
> that they have the configuration REQUITRED to exploit the vunerability!
> the link you provided only said there was code to fix a TCP problem. Not
> ALL the TCP code needs to be compiled in, so the servers may well be
> secure.
And what base TCP code would not be compiled into a machine that's on the
internet? We're not talking about things like IP masquerading here. We're
talking about the core TCP code.
If you choose to bury your head in the sand and yell "I'm secure until you
prove i'm not" rather than be proactive, that's your choice.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:40:56 GMT
Goldhammer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:26:24 GMT,
> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I take it that is the Microsoft's pretense of portability. Just
> >as warped as usual.
>
> People who indoctrinate themselves into Microsoft's way
> of thinking do indeed develop some very odd notions. You will
> note these yourself as you observe the logic displayed by
> some MS users.
>
> Some common trends:
>
> 1. A database is a file. For many people who were raised
> on MS Access, this bizarre notion is so deeply ingrained
> in their mind, that no force in the universe can ever
> explain to them otherwise. If your database management
> setup doesn't let you pack everything into one big file,
> then they consider it kludged or broken, and no amount
> of argumentation can ever dissuade them.
>
> 2. A portable application is one which can be easily
> carried from one Windows installation to another. This
> is what Bruce had in mind when he told me that Jet is
> the right choice for "easy portability".
>
> 3. An OS is something that runs on an x86. If you review
> the threads concerning >2Gb databases and also the
> threads discussing ext2, you simply cannot avoid concluding
> that some MS users have this notion deeply rooted in their
> brains.
I believe you forgot:
4. Many users means more than 1 but less than 20.
5. Many files means more than 1 but less than 40.
In general they simply do not consider any situation where GUI, drag and
drop, etc. are not unpractical but plainly impossible because of the
number of elements involved.
In this thread there was someone posting about a lady working with an
Excel spreadsheet, in order to follow orders or something like. When you
have 250 ladies working the same way, maybe the problem takes a
different light.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:43:12 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I mean that the 3-set combination lets you describe permission for
> > any group that you create. If you arbitrarily want to describe
> > permissions that don't match a group, ACLs let you do it.
>
> Why would I want to be limited to groups?
Why would you not create groups to match group activities? Using
the simple facility means the file system does not need to include
the overhead of arbitrary checks. There are, however projects
to add filesystems with ACL's to Linux. I don't know if any are
released yet.
> > > By talking about tighter control I'm talking about the ability to
grant
> > > different file permissions to individuals or groups to much higher
> degree
> > > than I can on linux.
> >
> > That isn't 'tighter'. It is just the ability to let your permissions
> > diverge
> > from your group definitions.
>
> Which is highly useful all too often.
Have you run out of names for groups?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:46:10 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>
> This argument is silly. I can just as easily turn it around and say:
>
> "If you're not running an X server on Unix, then X apps don't run
>
> On NT, the display is on your own screen, provided you're running a terminal
> server and client"
>
> Duh.
>
Not quite. By default, when you telnet to a machine, DISPLAY will not be
set. So an X app will fail to run. From the descriptions here, it sounds
like notepad will, by default, run and display on the main screen. I'd rather
have an app fail to start than to accidentally display on someone else's
machine with all the potential security problems that represents.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:56:22 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3RFP5.7811$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Don't your raid controllers let you see the error statistics and swap
> drives
> > without a shutdown? I think this is really all a ruse to excuse the
fact
> > that the OS won't stay up without periodic reboots to fix memory
> > leaks.
>
> Sure, but that's just one item. Routine maintenance should be conducted
on
> all parts in the system. Memory, Disk Controllers themselves, Power
> Supplies, CPU's, motherboards, etc...
Can you share some statistics on how often your diagnostics have
caught any component 'about to go bad' other than a disk drive?
In my experience, acutually running in production is a more
intense test that any diagnostic test you can get.
> Unless you're buying a $1 million redundant system, this is the way things
> go. And doing that completely voids the reason to use cheaper PC hardware
> (compared to Mainframes) to begin with.
Personally I am beginning to think that dual-power supplies are a
good idea if you want to keep something running, not because they
break that often, but because someone will insist on rewiring
the facility before you want to shut down or the UPS will fail
(which has happened to me more than power supplies breaking).
With a dual PS you can walk the power to a new source without
shutting down.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 17:59:50 -0600
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > This argument is silly. I can just as easily turn it around and say:
> >
> > "If you're not running an X server on Unix, then X apps don't run
> >
> > On NT, the display is on your own screen, provided you're running a
terminal
> > server and client"
> >
> > Duh.
>
> Not quite. By default, when you telnet to a machine, DISPLAY will not be
> set. So an X app will fail to run. From the descriptions here, it
sounds
> like notepad will, by default, run and display on the main screen. I'd
rather
> have an app fail to start than to accidentally display on someone else's
> machine with all the potential security problems that represents.
I don't think that happens under Win2k (I'll check though). I think Win2k
honors the context for the local user.
Similarly, what happens if you have DISPLAY set for a machine you are not
logged into? Does your app pop up on someone elses computer if you mistype
the IP address and that IP happens to have an X server running?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:00:23 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YUBP5.7790$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Of course, this now begs the question.. What is there for these people
to
> > DO once they've managed to telnet to a Win2k server? Start/Stop
services?
>
> Just about anything you can do under Unix via telnet. Ports for most
> programs exist for Win32. Elm, Pine, bash, tin, etc...
Those are all useful, but under windows you really need to run 'regedit'.
Can you do that via telnet?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:03:56 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8un8l6$jp0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > How about
> >
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.free-dvd.org.lu
> >
> > The 93 day max was clearly something screwy by looking at the graph,
> it
> > jumps from about 15 days to 93 days in one day then drops back down.
> >
> > An average of 13 days.
> >
> > Or this one:
>
> NOT ONE as bad as BN. Ther is a range of skill sets and management Ideas
> out in the world. a FEW may feel better rebooting no matter what (please
> notice I said a few), A few may be incompitant. A FEW sites may have
> other problems such as power. Others may building on the fly. The thing
> about W2K is you have managed to find ONE site (with ONE server) that
> gets into the Linux/Unix range and that server has not managed to make
> it more that a day or two lately. Then you ignore the fact that most of
> the sites are below the Linux/unix sites!
And you seem to be basing your entire argument on one site as well (bn.com).
I've already pointed out that there are literally 100's of thousands of NT
sites that are not listed in the uptime statistics. On top of that, NT4
doesn't ever return an uptime larger than 49.7 days, even if it's been up
for a year. It cycles back to 0 after 49.7 days and reports as if it had
been rebooted when it hasn't.
Also, Linux does the same thing, but it's in the 500 day range instead.
> let's do some industry by industry comparisons:
>
> And if you want to say it's because of scheduled maintenance, please
> explain how barns and noble is scheduled maintenance!
I have no idea how their maintenance is, nor do you.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:05:53 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lRBP5.7789$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Oh yes I forgot about that. However, you can't actually do a great deal
> can
> > you? If you run notepad, it pops up as a window on the main screen!
>
> No, it doesn't. Try running an X program from a telnet login, what
happens?
On all my machines if the remote has permission to open a window back
on the display that is the parent of the telnet session, it will do it
automatically. Isn't that the way things are supposed to work?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:07:06 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:G6GP5.19694$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sure, but that's just one item. Routine maintenance should be conducted
> on
> > all parts in the system. Memory, Disk Controllers themselves, Power
> > Supplies, CPU's, motherboards, etc...
>
> Can you share some statistics on how often your diagnostics have
> caught any component 'about to go bad' other than a disk drive?
> In my experience, acutually running in production is a more
> intense test that any diagnostic test you can get.
Things like power supplies tend to show eratic voltage levels before
failure. Memory tends to have sporadic bad bits. Most of the time it
works, sometimes it generates a bad bit. Only a diagnostic doing millions
of tests will find that. Motherboards are harder, but most of the larger
systems have diagnostic tools available (hardware and software).
> > Unless you're buying a $1 million redundant system, this is the way
things
> > go. And doing that completely voids the reason to use cheaper PC
hardware
> > (compared to Mainframes) to begin with.
>
> Personally I am beginning to think that dual-power supplies are a
> good idea if you want to keep something running, not because they
> break that often, but because someone will insist on rewiring
> the facility before you want to shut down or the UPS will fail
> (which has happened to me more than power supplies breaking).
> With a dual PS you can walk the power to a new source without
> shutting down.
Try doing that on a 500 server farm.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:09:11 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lOBP5.7787$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
> > Two or more simultaneous users,, each with their own PRIVATE data space,
> > both in memory, and on disk, each user having their own UNIQUE user
> > id, which is persistent from login to login.
>
> Yup, Win2k has all those features. Clearly you have no clue about it or
you
> would know this.
Would you like to qualify that as to which versions do and do not include
this capability, and for how many people at once?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
