Linux-Advocacy Digest #213, Volume #30 Mon, 13 Nov 00 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (! !)
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: OS stability (Stuart Fox)
Re: Side by side (Stuart Fox)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux get new term? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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: 13 Nov 2000 16:42:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8uh91v$8mi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > : "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > : news:8zPO5.72271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > :> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:33:02 GMT,
>> > :> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > :>
>> > :>
>> > :> >So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
>> > :> >techniques or special filesystems.
>> > :>
>> > :>
>> > :> That is quite nonsensical.
>> >
>> > : How so? How do you get >2GB databases with Oracle on Linux?
>> >
>> > : Some here, from your camp, reported that Oracle uses a special filesystem
>> > : to deal with the discrepancy.
>> >
>> > You are either ignorant or lying when you claim a 2GB limit is the
>> > reason for the use of the 'special filesystem'. Performance
>> > is the reason for assigning a raw partition to oracle's use.
>> > (And it's not a "filesystem" - Oracle just uses the partition
>> > as raw blocks of bytes because that's faster than going through
>> > an unneccessary filesystem layer (Since all Oracle wants to do
>> > is have a huge array of bytes of permanent store, the indirection
>> > of a filesystem is just fluff.) Even with access to a filesystem
>> > that can make one file larger than 2GB, oracle setup guides *still*
>> > reccomend that you use some raw partitions for oracle, for PERFORMANCE.
>>
>> Of course they do because ext2's performance sucks. However, on NT,
> It's recommended on EVERY platform, dumbshit.
Chad doesnt know this, because chad is faking his experience again. He actually
had no DB experience to speak of, no linux or unix experience to speak of, and
only understands windows in the most rudimentary fashion.
A quick perusal of his posts will show this to be true beyond doubt.
Stop pretending that you know something about computers chad, seriously. Just
ask questions when you dont know something. No one is going to bite your head
off, and you might just learn something.
=====.x5e.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:37:55 GMT
In article <vfUP5.7899$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uo5i7$8vf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The real question is: how much bang for you buck are you getting? In
a
> > clustered invironment that can handle failures, it may not be cost
> > affective to do the type of scheduled maintance that you have
suggested.
> > Please look though my posts for the full explination. I have worked
in
> > several large financial institutions and I can tell you that some of
the
> > nations bigist DO NOT DO any scheduled maintenance on there PC or
UNIX
> > servers only their big iron
>
> I wonder why that is? Perhaps because the big iron is their mission
> critical hardware?
More like it is single point of failure! I don't know of anyplace that
has a redundant IBM sitting around!!!! And actualy, I don't recall them
pulling hardware and putting it though any test machines. It was always
software maintinace for that out dated OS and network software. Please
read the posts that I have posted in reponse to your babble, you will
see that it just is NOT cost affective to do the type of maintinace that
you prupose if you have a well designed falt tolerant server farm.
besides, you have never proven that failure rate of PC hardware is 10%,
you have not proven the success rate at of the tools that you use. You
have not addressed the issue that these tests may actualy cause failures
(pulling ram, handling it...). You have never proven that any of the
companies that run W2K and reporting bad uptime results are doing this
type of work. In short you have just given your opinion with NOTHING to
back it up!
By the way, Just how would you remotly access the kernel space TCP stack
without using any userspace TCP sockets???? <Snicker>
>
> Tell me, what's the mission critical hardware in a business built
around a
> web site?
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:37:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Whoosh!
> >
> > What was that?
> >
> > Just another analogy shooting over Matt's head...
>
> What part of a computer needs regular maitenance, exactly?
>
He was talking about taking a machine out of rotation and running
hardware diagnostics on it (ie a "regular maintenance" style thing).
Is it your contention that hardware doesn't fail?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Side by side
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:43:43 GMT
In article <8umgpt$1jr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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'm still puzzled as to how you can get reliable uptime statistics out
of a clustered set of servers - presumably a different server in a
cluster will report a different uptime?
Uptime is a pretty unreliable measure - what is really needed is
a "consistent user availability measure" or something like that. You
could have a perfect uptime, but if you've put your box into single
user mode at any time during that, your uptime figure is basically
meaningless.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:00:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jerry McBride
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:21:28 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <8ubd0s$2ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:vE3O5.14127$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>>> You haven't been paying attention. Linux with the 2.4 kernel has
>>> won the latest tests, even that particular one contrived to exploit
>>> the earlier weakness so there would be *some* contest that
>>> NT could win.
>>
>>Beta yet, right?
>>Enough said.
>>No enterprise bussiness would put a beta product on an enterprise product
>>machine.
>>
>
>Odd you said that... they do it with WINDOWS... all the time...
>
>Windows, the evolving API... a moving target... never cast in stone...
This may not be such a bad thing ... as long as it's well documented.
(With Windows, that might be the problem.... :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.politics.election
Subject: Re: Linux get new term?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:00:49 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Mading wrote:
> :> like that, no way the oh-so-nice Repubs would ever think of it. You're
> :> deluded if you believe that. Both the major parties are corrupt
> :> enough to want to pull it off. Or were you just making a comment
> :> about the technical prowess of the average redneck, and saying that
> :> the Republicans wouldn't succeed at the attempt?
>
> : I'm just looking at which party has a history of voter fraud.
>
> Wrong. You're looking at the history of *detected* voter fraud.
> A successful voter fraud would be one that doesn't get detected,
> so we can't tell how many successes there have been, and who
> committed them. All I am saying is that BOTH parties have the
> immoral makeup such that I wouldn't be surprised if they did it.
>
> The Democrats have Chicago, the Republicans have Watergate. They
> both have a history of underhanded behaviour.
>
> [snip assinine sig]
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20001113_xex_how_democrat.shtml
ELECTION 2000
'How Democrats
steal elections'
Veterans of hand recounts describe
techniques used to change outcome
By Jon Dougherty and David Kupelian
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
The manual vote recounts being insisted on by
Democratic operatives in Palm Beach County,
Fla., have been used for over 20 years to steal
elections from Republicans, claim several GOP
veterans of hand-recount election-upsets.
According to Bob Haueter, chief of staff to the
California Assembly Republican Caucus, and an
expert on manual recounts, a Democrat lawyer
intimately involved in "stealing" elections from
Republicans through hand recounts admitted to
the process and even shared the techniques
involved.
After Tuesday's vote and an automatic recount
still left GOP nominee George W. Bush ahead
by a slim 288-vote margin, Palm Beach elections
officials decided that a manual recount of all
425,000 votes should be undertaken.
"What's happening in Florida is exactly the
game plan laid out to me by an attorney who
represented the Democrats in a recount in
California where they stole a seat from us,"
former California Assemblyman Pat Nolan told
WorldNetDaily.
A staunch conservative legislator, Nolan served
in the California Assembly from 1978 until 1994,
when he was convicted, along with several other
lawmakers, in a federal corruption probe. After
spending a little over two years in federal
prison, he emerged to become president of
Justice Fellowship, the public policy arm of
Watergate figure Chuck Colson's Prison
Fellowship Ministries. For the past four years,
Nolan has worked with Colson -- another
fallen-but-reformed public figure -- to reform
the criminal justice system.
Regarding the 1980 California Assembly race
between Republican Adrian Fondse and
Democrat Pat Johnston, Nolan recalled that the
Republican won "by about 54 votes or so."
But after the election, Democrats "brought in
their junkyard dog lawyers from around the
country," said Nolan, "and basically harassed
the local registrar -- got in their faces and
demanded to handle ballots" -- which were of
the same type now in dispute in Palm Beach.
The same issue of "hanging chads -- the little
squares in the punch cards -- was also an issue
in Stockton," says Nolan. The Democrats'
strategy, he says, was to handle them as often as
possible -- perhaps bending, crinkling or
otherwise altering them -- so that additional
chads become displaced, thereby disqualifying
the ballot.
The result? In the Stockton election, Nolan said
Democrats were successful in getting the vote
count reversed from a plus-54 win by
Republicans to a minus-17 loss.
"I vowed that I'd never let that happen again,"
Nolan said. "So I asked my staff to track down
the lawyer that headed up the team for the
Democrats."
Haueter was, at that time, chief of staff for
Nolan, and it was he who first contacted
attorney Tim Downs, who readily admitted the
Democratic strategy and even described the
tactics to Nolan.
"When I first called him and explained to him
who I was and why I was calling, he chuckled
and said, 'I wondered when you guys would get
around to calling me,'" Haueter said, adding
that Downs told him -- "'I've taken several seats
from you across the United States.'"
"Downs told me, somewhat tongue-in-cheek,
'You get me within 100 votes and I can steal any
election,'" Haueter told WorldNetDaily.
Nolan subsequently hired Downs and "brought
him out to train my staff in the techniques they
[Democrats] were using" so they could protect
themselves against future election-fraud
victimization, Nolan said.
Nolan and Haueter said Downs described three
basic tactics:
"The first rule is, you keep counting until
you're ahead. And if that doesn't put you
ahead, you recount, re-recount -- you keep
counting until you're ahead. If you're
behind, then you've got nothing to lose."
Second, Nolan said, "the more times those
ballots are handled, the more chance there
is that chads will break loose" and hence
disqualify the ballot.
Third, he said, "the minute you're ahead,
you stop and declare yourself the victor."
"After that, you don't want the ballots handled
any more," Nolan said, "because some of the
chads for your candidate might break loose.
While you're behind it doesn't matter, but if
you're ahead and more break off or become
disqualified for your candidate, that's a bad
thing."
A favorite tactic, said Nolan, is to ask election
officials for ballots, "allegedly so they can look
at it more closely." When operatives do, often
they will bend or crinkle ballots covertly in an
effort to break another chad loose and thus have
the ballot thrown out.
"This whole process sounds like exactly what is
going on in Florida," Nolan said. "And the more
times those ballots are handled, the more
chances are you'll break some of them [chads]
loose."
Nolan referred to Fox News' Tony Snow's
weekend interview with Bush campaign
representative and former Secretary of State
James Baker, in which he asked Baker why --
after each time election officials run ballots
through mechanical vote-tally machines -- there
have been more votes counted or taken away
from both candidates.
"Baker didn't have an answer to that," Nolan
said. "But the answer is, because they've
handled those ballots more times, breaking
loose more of those chads" -- those that perhaps
weren't completely punched through.
"The tactics fit what [Downs] told me back in
1982 and 1983," Nolan said, who added that he
didn't know who Downs may have worked with
using these tactics recently.
WorldNetDaily attempted to reach Downs by
phone on Sunday, but was unsuccessful.
Following a mechanical recount over the
weekend, Palm Beach election officials awarded
an additional 36 votes to Gore, while Bush lost
three.
"A hand count of four selected precincts turned
up enough additional votes for Gore to prompt
the Democratic majority on the county election
commission to order the hand recount in all 531
precincts," the Associated Press reported.
Republicans, news accounts said, lodged
"strenuous protests" and pledged to file a
lawsuit halting yet another recount of Palm
Beach votes. That hearing is scheduled for
today.
Reports said nearly 30,000 ballots have already
been rejected in Palm Beach County because
they had two or more holes punched for
president, or because computers could not
detect any holes at all. Ballots with two votes
also are rejected in hand counts.
Corroborating Haueter's and Nolan's account is
a parallel story by Los Angeles-area political
strategist Arnold Steinberg. In a National
Review.com piece titled "Beware of Hanging
Chads," Steinberg asks, "Do you know what two
words will determine the Presidential election?"
The chilling answer, he said: "Hanging chads."
Steinberg, describing a 1980 congressional race
between long-time incumbent, Democrat James
C. Corman, and Steinberg's client, Republican
challenger Bobbi Fiedler, recalls how after
Fiedler's upset victory -- by a slim margin --
over the heavily favored Corman, the Democrats
called for a hand recount.
"Democratic Party lawyers and recount
specialists descended on the county registrar's
office," says Steinberg. "Each recount station had
a government employee to do the counting,
flanked by one Democratic and one Republican
observer.
"The Democrats' agenda was, of course, to
change the election result, and they went about
it systematically. At their urging, the recounting
began with Corman's strongest precincts,
Fiedler's weakest. Their intention was to recount
ballots in those areas until the election outcome
was reversed, and then stop the recount.
Similarly, today in Florida, the Gore people are
demanding hand recounts in their favored
counties, where they would be most likely to
gain."
Just as important as the order in which the
precincts are recounted, however, is outright
ballot tampering, says Steinberg.
"Their hired guns tried lots of tricks on
Corman's behalf, but what I remember most was
the hanging chads. A chad is the perforated
square (or circle) on the ballot that a voter
depresses with a pin to indicate his preferred
candidate. The chad hangs from the ballot if the
voter didn't fully depress it -- for instance, if an
older person did not press firmly enough. This
matters because voter machines usually are not
able to tabulate cards with hanging chads.
"It often comes down to interpreting the voter's
intention. Does the chad hang 'strongly' -- i.e,
detached only a little -- meaning that it is a
mistake that should not be counted? Or does it
hang loosely -- i.e., mostly detached -- as an
intended vote would be?
"What my lawyers soon discovered was that the
opposition would eyeball a disputed ballot
before picking it up to officially inspect it. If the
hanging chad indicated a vote for Fiedler, the
lawyer for the other side picked up the ballot
ever so carefully, so he could argue that the
voter really never intended to vote for Fiedler. If
the hanging chad was a Corman vote, the lawyer
picked up the ballot quite vigorously, so that
the chad soon was no longer hanging.
"'You see,' their guy would declare, 'that voter
obviously intended to vote for Corman.'"
Luckily, says Steinberg, "it didn't take long to
figure out all the opposition's tricks. I added
more lawyers, more observers, and the bad
guys eventually caved. Bobbi Fiedler's victory
was preserved. But it was a nasty business."
Echoing Nolan's and Haueter's experience with
manual-vote recounts, Steinberg says, "The
more things change, the more they stay the
same."
--
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
******************************
