Linux-Advocacy Digest #231, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 11:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Jack Troughton)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (Rasputin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Phil 'Guido' Cava)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Craig Kelley)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Craig Kelley)
Re: Focus in Linux seems a bit cooky (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:06:52 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > You still never explained why NT never made it into the Top 50, Eric.
>
> Read the link again. It explains it quite clearly. NT4 simply cannot, in
> any circumstance, report an uptime longer than 49.7 days, even if the server
> has been up for 3 years straight. It can't make it into the top 50 if it is
> incapable of reporting a time large enough to BE in the top 50, now can it?
So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
that what you're saying?
> > And you never explained the graph that shows Starbucks rebooting their
> > NT 4 server on a daily basis for months and months on end.
>
> Again:
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#whichos
>
> "NT4 SP5 sometimes gives unreliable data, appearing as a "swarm of bees"
> effect on a graph."
So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
that what you're saying?
> Notice how the starbucks NT4 results show no trend. One day it's an 18 day
> uptime, the next day it's 40 days, the next day it's 0 days, the next day
> something else. There is no way from *ANY* NT4 uptime result to know if
> it's accurate or not.
So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
that what you're saying?
> > I thought
> > NT 4 was the end-all and be-all of server OS's, Eric? How can u
> > explain this anomalous behavior?
>
> I explain it by pointing out netcrafts own explanation. NT4's uptime
> statistics are not valid in any condition. Ever.
So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
that what you're saying?
> > Oh, and Eric, how can you explain
> > the fact that 74% of all Internet servers are on *nix?
>
> I can't explain it, because it's not true. 74% of all hostnames are run on
> unix servers, which is not the same thing as 74% of all internet servers.
> There is no statistics on how many actual servers there are on the internet,
> and what OS they run. Here's the hint, one server can have more than one,
> even thousands of hostnames. And one hostname can have more than one, even
> hundreds of servers.
So what you're saying here is that when someone needs to be able to
put lots of names on a single host, they're better off using UNIX? I
mean, the only way you can skew the numbers to favour NT is if UNIX
is doing most of the heavy lifting wrt many hostnames on one host...
> > And how can
> > you explain the recent study in which an NT server had to be rebooted
> > 64 times in a year while the Linux server only had to be rebooted
> > once?
>
> And which study was that?
>
> > And how can you explain the most recent repeats of the
> > Mindcraft survey in which Linux/Apache is now kicking NT/IIS? Eric?
> > Are you there? ;)
>
> Apache is *NOT* kicking IIS. Tux is. And that's an entirely different can
> of worms. Get your facts straight.
Well, seeing as you're telling us that there's no reliable way of
assessing NT's real-world performance on the internet, which facts
are we supposed to get straight? I mean, why would anyone use a
system that can't even track its own uptime properly? If one's going
to use a server system, I would certainly hesitate to use one that
is designed in such a way as to make gathering reliability
information impossible to gather in any meaningful way.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:37:28 -0500
Pascal Haakmat wrote...
> >Please don't play the ass or be silly.
>
> Funny you should say that after snipping all but the most capricious remark
> from my post.
I did so because the idiotic remark was the central focus of my reply.
The rest of what you wrote had very little to do with the remark and my
statement that preceded it. Why waste bandwidth and quote the rest? It's
basic netiquette. :-) The fact that you sounded reasonable before you
made the silly remark doesn't take away from its being silly.
> >The required knowledge to make one able to write an application is a
> >different ballgame altogether compared to the knowledge you need in order
> >to prevent running malicious content contained withing e-mail attachments
> >unintentionally. You therefore cannot compare the two. Even if you're
> >saying it figuratively it doesn't slide.
>
> To write a good word processor, you need to know more than just a
> programming language and an API. Depending on your ambition, you also need
> to know about measurements (inches, centimeters), font families, page sizes,
> typing habits, spelling, grammar, language, aesthetics, and so forth.
>
> People don't buy your word processor just because it accepts text from the
> keyboard and displays it on the screen. They buy it because it contains
> knowledge.
Yes.
> Similarly, an email client needs to know things. It needs to know about
> other people, mailing lists, priority mail, replies, forwarding, privacy and
> trust. So if you decide to design an email client, then YOU need to know
> about all these things, and more.
Yes.
> The problem with Microsoft is not that they don't write good code per se.
> The problem with Microsoft is that the code is written by people who lack
> the domain specific knowledge to make good decisions about what to code and
> how to code it.
The problem with guys like you is that you love to stand outside looking
in, and criticize how MS designs applications for ignorant users to
meaningfully use and still remain largely ignorant. Find any other
application so designed for ignorant users and you'll see similar
problems, yet these other apps are not written by MS. The usual silly
answer to this is that these developers outside MS are following the MS
way. The amusing part is that these very developers dislike MS. If you're
going to develop for the ignorant, these issues will come up. The
solution is to educate to avoid these problems. OS's and applications for
the computer wary will never have these problems.
It's quite amusing to watch the techies criticize and if one were to put
them in MS's place they'd be doing pretty much the same things to make
the ignorant, in the privacy of their homes and not offices with helpful
sysadmins hovering around, use their machines with minimal effort.
> Just of the top of my head, I can identify three issues where Outlook's
> knowledge turns out to be simply inappropriate for the domain:
>
> 1. Quoting.
What about quoting?
> 2. TNEF attachments.
> 3. ILOVEYOU.
>
> The ILOVEYOU security hole was caused by three decisions on the part of
> Microsoft. First, the decision that open-is-execute. Second, the decision to
> hide a file's extension. Third, the decision to allow a script easy access
> to a user's address book. Combined, they allowed the creation of ILOVEYOU.
Why? They cater to ignorant users that use their machines at home. It is
*you* who aren't familiar with that domain. MS has been dealing with that
domain for close to 10 years. Ignorant users in the privacy of their
homes, comprise a very different domain when compared to the same
ignorant users in a controlled corporate environment where their machines
are administered by competent sysadmins and where help is close by.
> The "success" of ILOVEYOU has very little to do with ignorant, stupid and
> complacent users, as you suggest.
It has EVERYTHING to do with them.
> In fact, very much the opposite. Clearly
> many of the targetted people were curious and inquisitive to know what was
> in the TEXT FILE entitled "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT", especially since it
> came from a KNOWN SENDER.
But this is exactly the point.
> If Outlook had been written/reviewed by somebody with in-depth knowledge of
> the problem domain, then that somebody would probably have figured that the
> default settings conspired to form a security hole, and the product would
> never have shipped in it's original form.
And how would they do that and not let the ignorant user become
frustrated and introducing extra learning and concepts to confuse the
user who apparently doesn't need to learn anything? I am yet to hear a
good *workable* solution to that from any of you during this discussion.
I keep hearing technocratic, competent user based solutions that simply
will not work in an ignorant *home user* setting. I'd sure love to hear
your brilliant solution.
> But because Microsoft appears to
> employ only kids who just know a programming language and an API very well
> (and nothing else), this didn't happen.
What an obnoxious statement. :-) They're however, the successful ones,
while UNIX and like great professional OS's remain in the deep fringes. I
wonder why that is?
Answer ... [insert your conspiracy theory here, and never that MS
actually has good insight into what their users want and what they
respond to or prefer.]
> Finally, it doesn't concern me that you do not think Outlook is the problem.
I didn't expect you to.
> What does concern me is that Microsoft issued updates to FIX the problem.
That's an inevitable reaction on MS's part which should make them
realised that they cannot yield to the ignorant as they've been doing. It
has its repercussions. There's a subtle but fundamental difference in our
impression of Outlook and how it deals with attachments.
If MS's mission is to make Outlook easy to use by ignorant novices
without them having to learn much then they're doing fine. The problem is
that security becomes an issue. MS is using the glitter on the surface
principle to lure users to their platform. The glitter is "you can use my
OS without learning any complicated stuff". However, what lies beneath is
poor security as a direct consequence.
If MS's mission is to make Outlook secure to use, then the ignorant
novices have some learning to do. The two situations cannot and will not
ever exist for the foreseeable future. MS realized this all too long ago.
They also realize that people prefer not having to learn how to do
anything and to just do it. They realised that if they could improve on
ease of use they could lure users to their OS. This has been central to
their very successful development model. Many of you skeptics choose to
credit their success to good advertising. Yes, it was important, I agree,
but ease of use and cost (Apples problem) were even more important.
> >Amazingly you're the same guys advocating that they use an OS like Linux.
> >Gee.
>
> I wonder what you'll snip this time.
It's not the snipping that's the problem.
--
___ACM________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:39:04 GMT
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 01:27:54 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Recently, they decided it would be a great idea to take this smoothly working
: setup and install Win2K as the web server in its place. I now had to change
: my content in two ways:
:
: 1. My index.html page had to become default.htm (requiring changes in all
: of the sub-pages that link back to this page)
They could have fixed this for you.
: 2. All of the CGI stuff I was using had to be canned, rebuilt, or replaced
Agreed, this is a valid complaint. A big pain in the rear..
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rasputin)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:40:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mlw> wrote:
>Darin Johnson wrote:
>>
>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > > * Very hard to make bindings to languages other than C++.
>> > Not true.
>> >
>> > extern "C" function(....)
>>
>> True, but that may not be the point. Ie, if the interface is in C,
>> then it doesn't matter if the actual implementation is in C++ or
>> Fortran or something else. When people say "I wish this library was
>> in C++" they usually mean they want the library interface is in C++,
>> not implemented in C++ with an `extern "C"' interface.
>
>Certainly not I. My gripe is the GTK itself. It tries to be object
>oriented but is a horrible mess because they IMHO chose C instead of C++
>because they didn't like C++, not because it wasn't the better tool for
>the job.
So use Gtk--.
One nice thing about Gtk is that there are loads of
language bindings to it. Gtk::Perl seems to be becoming
very popular for cobbling together attractive GUIs
(beats Tcl, anyway)
I agree - Gtk macros are no substitute for a good
object model. But then I'm a Java boy originally, so from
my point of view C++ is an equally horrible kludge.
But then I go for Gtk because I like eye candy,
(KDE themes being a little weak) so what do I know?
--
Rasputin.
Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns.
------------------------------
From: Phil 'Guido' Cava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:48:06 GMT
Jack,
You are overlooking one fact in trying to evaluate the reliability of NT:
Microsoft did not design NT to _be_ reliable; hence the limit of 49.7 days of
uptime, which MS obviously deemed an adequate measure of NT.
;) Guido
Jack Troughton wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > You still never explained why NT never made it into the Top 50, Eric.
> >
> > Read the link again. It explains it quite clearly. NT4 simply cannot, in
> > any circumstance, report an uptime longer than 49.7 days, even if the server
> > has been up for 3 years straight. It can't make it into the top 50 if it is
> > incapable of reporting a time large enough to BE in the top 50, now can it?
>
> So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> that what you're saying?
>
> > > And you never explained the graph that shows Starbucks rebooting their
> > > NT 4 server on a daily basis for months and months on end.
> >
> > Again:
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#whichos
> >
> > "NT4 SP5 sometimes gives unreliable data, appearing as a "swarm of bees"
> > effect on a graph."
>
> So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> that what you're saying?
>
> > Notice how the starbucks NT4 results show no trend. One day it's an 18 day
> > uptime, the next day it's 40 days, the next day it's 0 days, the next day
> > something else. There is no way from *ANY* NT4 uptime result to know if
> > it's accurate or not.
>
> So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> that what you're saying?
>
> > > I thought
> > > NT 4 was the end-all and be-all of server OS's, Eric? How can u
> > > explain this anomalous behavior?
> >
> > I explain it by pointing out netcrafts own explanation. NT4's uptime
> > statistics are not valid in any condition. Ever.
>
> So... there is no real-world way to assess the reliability of NT. Is
> that what you're saying?
>
> > > Oh, and Eric, how can you explain
> > > the fact that 74% of all Internet servers are on *nix?
> >
> > I can't explain it, because it's not true. 74% of all hostnames are run on
> > unix servers, which is not the same thing as 74% of all internet servers.
> > There is no statistics on how many actual servers there are on the internet,
> > and what OS they run. Here's the hint, one server can have more than one,
> > even thousands of hostnames. And one hostname can have more than one, even
> > hundreds of servers.
>
> So what you're saying here is that when someone needs to be able to
> put lots of names on a single host, they're better off using UNIX? I
> mean, the only way you can skew the numbers to favour NT is if UNIX
> is doing most of the heavy lifting wrt many hostnames on one host...
>
> > > And how can
> > > you explain the recent study in which an NT server had to be rebooted
> > > 64 times in a year while the Linux server only had to be rebooted
> > > once?
> >
> > And which study was that?
> >
> > > And how can you explain the most recent repeats of the
> > > Mindcraft survey in which Linux/Apache is now kicking NT/IIS? Eric?
> > > Are you there? ;)
> >
> > Apache is *NOT* kicking IIS. Tux is. And that's an entirely different can
> > of worms. Get your facts straight.
>
> Well, seeing as you're telling us that there's no reliable way of
> assessing NT's real-world performance on the internet, which facts
> are we supposed to get straight? I mean, why would anyone use a
> system that can't even track its own uptime properly? If one's going
> to use a server system, I would certainly hesitate to use one that
> is designed in such a way as to make gathering reliability
> information impossible to gather in any meaningful way.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
> * http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
> * Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
> ----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
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: 14 Nov 2000 08:48:35 -0700
Goldhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <xP5Q5.126446$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I quoted:
> >
> > "Internally, all Oracle8i file I/O routines support 64-bit file
> > offsets, meaning that there are no 2GB or 4GB file size limitations
> > when it comes to data, log, or control files as is the case on some
> > other platforms."
> >
> > "some other platforms" have 2GB or 4GB file limitations.
> >
> > Linux and Unix would be examples.
> >
> > NT does NOT have a 2GB or 4GB file size limitation.
>
>
> Whether or not you can use >2Gb or >4Gb Oracle
> datafiles on NT depends on:
>
> 1. Your version of NT
>
> 2. Your service packs
>
> 3. Your version of Oracle
>
> 4. The DBA policy at your site. Some sites implement
> a policy of outright banning the usage of such large
> files.
>
> In any case, don't think life is going to be
> so rosy for a DBA who plans on designing a database
> around a tablespace with one massive 32Gb Oracle datafile.
> In many cases, it's quite possibly the dumbest
> design decision one can make.
Yes; especially when one of those drives goes down and you have two
18GB spares ready to put in the machine.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:49:51 +1000
"Pascal Haakmat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8urhho$66c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >> In any case, whether this is possible or not, an executable attachment
> >will
> >> always have an icon that identifies it as such. You cannot confuse the
> >> system by using multiple extensions such as in Outlook, which I think
is
> >the
> >> real issue.
> >
> >Outlook wasn't confused. It displayed the correct icon. It's just that
the
> >name was "file.txt
> >.vbs", and outlook truncated the filename after so many characters.
>
> You are right. I got things mixed up.
>
> My opinion that extension hiding brings about confusion stands, however.
It depends. People who have never used extensions don't notice they're not
there. People who use extensions to identify files OTOH, go absolutely
insane if their files don't have them.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:42:01 GMT
In article <Xa_P5.15627$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Steve Mading wrote:
>
> > In Linux this is entirely under the control of userland setup
> > programs, *not* the core OS. As such, the behaviour is different
> > depending on which setup tool you use. Some setup tools do
> > exactly what you describe, and have for some time. Some do not.
>
> I'm using Kppp which is part of KDE 2.0?
>
> I can see it is adding my two ISP DNS entries to /etc/resolv.conf,
however
> it doesn't seem to remove them on exit.
Are you sure you are exiting kppp cleanly?
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: 14 Nov 2000 08:52:31 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, I've worked for two companies now that have used Oracle and in both
> > companies they have had long-standing and trained Oracle DBAs that did not
> > use the raw partition either on Solaris or NT when they installed it. We
> > rarely, if ever had problems (with uptime, at least, aside from the crappiness
> > of the Oracle product in general) with these database and performance was
> > good.
>
> Either these 'oracle DBAs' didnt know what the hell they were doing, or
> you're lying
Actually, for once, Chad's correct. Using raw partitions is usually a
mistake. If you absolutely need the extra 5% performance bonus that
it gives you, then you're usually better off getting more mature
hardware.
Using files buys a lot of flexibility; multiple tablespaces can be put
on a single drive and then migrated as demand goes up (or down). Raw
partitions lock you into specific drive geometries when you need to
reinstall the system from backup.
In short, files are scalable and manageble; raw partitions are
slightly faster.
> > Please cite cases where raw partitions are the norm and that using the
> > filesystem is a rarity, as you claim.
>
> Pretty much all of them, chad.
Not in my DBA experience with both Sybase SQL Server (aka Microsoft
SQL server) and Oracle.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Focus in Linux seems a bit cooky
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:47:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My guess is that you are using "Focus Follows Mouse". This is actually
> my prefered method for using X windows, as it allows me to type into
> a background window while reading prompts from the window in front, a
> great help when doing directions like this.
>
Just for kicks, you can do that in click-to-focus, too, you know ;-)
RMB-click on window decoration transfers focus without raising.
> Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Hey, I got one of those too, ages ago, when the internet was new!
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
