Linux-Advocacy Digest #377, Volume #30 Thu, 23 Nov 00 05:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Alessandro Rubini's very interesting article on system calls... ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: yo (Jim Broughton)
Re: Which distribution do I get? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Which distribution do I get? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mandrake 7.2 Quick Review (David Steinberg)
Re: yo (Edward Rosten)
Re: Microsoft = Ingsoc? They're clearly using some of the same tactics! (Kenny
Pearce)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Microsoft = Ingsoc? They're clearly using some of the same tactics! (Edward
Rosten)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux + KDE2 + hello world = 8( (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: What does KDE do after all (Edward Rosten)
Re: Ok I'll give a little...but just a little... (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Stuart Fox)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Alessandro Rubini's very interesting article on system calls...
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 02:47:32 -0500
Todd wrote:
>
> As a Winadvocate, I'd have to disagree.
>
> Moving the GDI to the kernel *does* make the OS potentially less stable.
> This is because of the simple fact that if the GDI crashes, the whole system
> crashes. Granted, if the GDI crashed in user space, you'd still have to
> reboot - but at a more convenient time.
>
> However, let me point out a few things:
>
> 1) NT crashes were rarely if ever attributed to GDI once that famous
> NTCrash program forced MS to fill all of the GDI holes.
>
> 2) Windows 2000 is so robust and stable that I've only had crashes due to
> bad drivers or hardware problems like flaky memory. Since 2000's launch,
> drivers have gotten a ton better.
We heard this with Lose95, LoseNT 4, and Lose98.
Why would anybody believe it now?
>
> 3) The performance improvements made to GDI were well worth it. In fact,
> MS did a lot more than just shift the GDI to the kernel. They implemented
> batch queueing of GDI requests among other things.
Of course, cleaning up the spaghetti code isn't an option, is it?
>
> MS chose a big video performance improvement over *potentially* decreased
> stability iff there are bugs still in the GDI.
Big deal.
> The GDI is a pretty mature system at this point. The GDI API has been very
> stable (unchanged) since NT 4.0.
>
> Windows 2000 has shown itself to be extremely stable (far more so than even
> NT). But don't kid yourselves.
>
> If MS cared *only* about stability, they would have kept the GDI out of the
> kernel. I don't care what expert you talk to.
>
> -Todd
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8v4q64$qb8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I can recall, on many occasions, that every time someone
> > complained about WindowsNT's architecture, one of us in
> > COMNA would point out that moving the GDI into kernel
> > space was a good thing because:
> >
> > 1.) It didn't comprimise stability, since even as a
> > separate module, a GDI fault would cause a BSOD.
> >
> > 2.) It significantly increased the speed of the interface.
> >
> > Then many a Linux tech-wannabe would chime in, generally
> > stating that calls from kernel space did not yield any
> > speed advantages whatsoever, and that Microsoft's
> > engineers only placed the GDI into kernel space,
> > because they are just idiots.
> >
> > Alas, here, I am reading in the November 2000 issue of
> > Linux Magazine, a very informative article from an
> > obviously very learned and knowledgable Linux developer
> > known as Alessandro Rubini. The article is basically
> > about how making system calls from kernel space can
> > significantly reduce overhead, and I must say, it was
> > a very interesting read.
> >
> > Here is one of his cumulative comments before he
> > begins to go into detail on the "read" call:
> >
> > ----
> > "Until now, we have collected a few figures and have
> > found that making system calls from kernel space can
> > significantly reduce the overhead of the system call
> > mechanism."
> > ----
> >
> > To be fair, he continues on to say:
> >
> > ----
> > "...I still think that their use should be as limited
> > as possible."
> > ----
> >
> > So, it's clear that he would not be a proponent of
> > placing something such as the X protocol in kernel
> > space. That's fine. But he still makes the point
> > that kernel-space calls are indeed faster. He also
> > points out that stability is one of the sacrifices,
> > but in WindowsNT, there is no stability sacrificed,
> > as there was no advantage to having the GDI in a
> > separate module, which, again, makes our (NT users')
> > point.
> >
> > <sarcasm>
> > 'Gee! Now, who shall we believe? A person who knows
> > something about the Linux kernel, or a bunch of
> > political-activist momma's boys who like to dress
> > up like programmers, and call themselves "intellectuals"?
> > </sarcasm>
> >
> > I have to hand it to Linux Magazine... it really
> > does tend to distance itself from the stupid
> > anti-Microsoft baloney that the Linux camp is
> > so famous for, and it actually uses its pages
> > to inform people about Linux. I'm seriously
> > thinking about subscribing to it, for the mere
> > interest of the technical content. Who knows...
> > maybe I can apply some of their tricks to NetBSD. :-\
> >
> > For all of my fellow NT users, who never thought anyone
> > involved in Linux would have anything intelligent
> > to say about it, I would suggest it, if not for anything
> > else, but just an interesting magazine to read.
> > --
> > .-----.
> > |[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
> > | = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > | -| "You are a waste of space; a disgrace to your profession;
> > | | both the one you claim and the kindergarten student you
> > |_..._| act like..." -- Robert Moir to Aaron R. Kulkis in COMNA
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: yo
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:51:47 GMT
Frank Van Damme wrote:
>
> In article <nRDS5.21184$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > i like linux
> me too
>
> --
> Never underestimate the power of Linux-Mandrake
> 7.2 on an AMD K7 800 / 128.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Never underestimate the easy and simplicity of Slackware.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Which distribution do I get?
Date: 23 Nov 2000 08:05:42 GMT
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:02:37 +0200, Karen Rosin wrote:
>If you are beginning your way in the Linux world, it will help you to start
>with "main stream" Linux, e.g. Red Hat. I would have installed Red Hat 6.1 or
>6.2 (not 7 yet...).
Don't bother with RH 7. They've shipped a dud compiler. RH 6.2 is a good
distribution, but for someone who's after the latest, and wants a clean
upgrade path, Mandrake 7.2 is probably the best choice IMO. KDE 2, gcc 2.95.2,
and a bunch of good dev tools. Nice.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Which distribution do I get?
Date: 23 Nov 2000 08:08:18 GMT
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:13:44 +0000, T wrote:
>I have a simple qestion: what distribution of linux should I get? I want to
>design web pages, possibly host them, java programming, c++ (I want to learn
>it), etc. I know practically nothing about unix or linux, so any good sources
>of information (it's a pain in the butt to search through everything that
>comes up when you search for anything on the net) would be GREATlY
>appreciated! Thanks
Go with Mandrake 7.2. It's up to date, easy to use and ships with the
latest-and-greatest dev tools.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 Quick Review
Date: 23 Nov 2000 08:14:18 GMT
Gary Hallock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Oh, yes, this is classic "claire". He does this once in a while during
: his apologetic stage. He has said pretty much the same type of things
: many times before. Don't worry. he'll be back to his old ranting self in
: a day or two.
...as soon as he finds the first thing that doesn't perfectly set itself
up automatically. Then, instead of finding the (probably trivial)
solution, he will rant about how many HOWTO's he's read and how many books
are sitting on his bookshelf.
Of course, if he had read half of what he claims, he would be quite the
guru by now, and wouldn't keep trying every distro under the sun to
see if they get absolutely everything right automatically on installation.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: yo
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:22:33 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> i like linux
Yep. I do to. Good isn't it?
-Ed
Ps it's good to see some advocacy on an advocacy group
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold | Edward
Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Kenny Pearce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft = Ingsoc? They're clearly using some of the same tactics!
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:27:16 -0800
Windows does posses the capability to muddle along with drive partitions. I'll
admit that. But if windows has virtual terminals or virtual screens I would be
much interested to know how these features are accessed.
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Kenny Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > How does this relate to Microsoft? Look at technical jargon. Imagine
> > trying to communicate to the average Windows user the idea of "virtual
> > terminals", "drive partitions" or "virtual screens".
>
> Uhh.. Windows has all three, and in fact they are quite common.
>
> The average windows user doesn't know what these are though, simply because
> they don't care. They don't want to use technical terms. They don't know
> the difference between hard disk and memory, much less what a partition is.
>
> This is because they are end-users, not enthusiasts. They use computers to
> do their work. Much like most users of cars don't know what a rotor is, or
> a ball joint. They might have heard of it, but couldn't tell you what it
> is.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 08:42:43 GMT
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> He's still wrong. You need only take the 2x hit once every 2^32 counter
> ticks.
Don't you need an extra branch-if or something? This *could* wreak
havoc on deeply pipelined architectures (most, these days). And it's
anyway an extra instruction.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft = Ingsoc? They're clearly using some of the same tactics!
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:44:07 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Kenny Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > How does this relate to Microsoft? Look at technical jargon. Imagine
> > trying to communicate to the average Windows user the idea of "virtual
> > terminals", "drive partitions" or "virtual screens".
Since when has windows had virtual screens/ terminals? What are they
like?
-Ed
> Uhh.. Windows has all three, and in fact they are quite common.
>
> The average windows user doesn't know what these are though, simply because
> they don't care. They don't want to use technical terms. They don't know
> the difference between hard disk and memory, much less what a partition is.
>
> This is because they are end-users, not enthusiasts. They use computers to
> do their work. Much like most users of cars don't know what a rotor is, or
> a ball joint. They might have heard of it, but couldn't tell you what it
> is.
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold | Edward
Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:41:59 +0200
"Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 05:32:09 +0200, "Ayende Rahien"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I actually said our MSCE. And please don't patronize me. You "really"
> don't know me.
MSCE does not exist.
> >No, you MCSE is shit.
Typo on my side, should be your instead of you.
> >"MSCE" doesn't even exist, for that matter, that may explain it.
> >If he was a real MCSE, he would've write a VBS/JS/CMD/BAT/WSH file and
put
> >it in everyone's logon or logoff scripts.
>
> Thanks, can I tell him someone agrees with me ;-)
> The look on his face when he said he was getting Norton on every
> computer and it would take a month, and I suggested it on the network
> with the script. Priceless.
Should be his first thought, that is how things should be done.
> >IIRC, that happens the first time you open IE, and only if you open it
from
> >the quick luanch, it takes 2 seconds to change it.
> >I may be wrong, because opening from the quick launch is practically the
> >only way I open IE.
> >
> Actually it was off the desktop for her IE. It was off the quicklaunch
> for my OE (which I no longer have :-)). When I visit tomorrow will
> check to see if that fixes it. Thanks for the advice.
After the first time, I believe that it goes back to mircrosoft.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 + hello world = 8(
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 08:54:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
>> the steps depends strongly on the particular GUI you're writing
>> for. My point is just that it's much more complex than it first
>> appears, even to write a simple "Hello World," application.
> Not necessarily.
[14 lines, ~230 characters]
> That's the most minimal version I could think of.
As compared to
#!/bin/sh
echo "hello world"
(45 chars) or for C,
main(){
puts("hello world");
}
(59 chars). Haskell:
main = putStr "hello world"
(35 chars).
Of course, with MS Visual Developer Studio, you can write a hello
world application by selecting it in a few dialogs. The resulting
program is large, though, but it's a minimum of key presses, I'm
sure.
(On the other hand, I'm not sure what I'm trying to prove :-)
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:48:09 +0000
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, sfcybear
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:11:03 GMT
> <8uire5$g1f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Hey, this is NOT the MS world were you stuck with one desktop. If you
> >don't like KDE, DON'T USE IT! Use one of the other desktops! Geees.
>
> Or don't use a desktop at all. In my case, I use fvwm. It's an
> older-style window manager (though not as old as twm) that
> works reasonably well. I think it predates the "desktop" buzzword. :-)
>
> But I surmise there are some that don't use X at all, switching
> between consoles with ALT-Fn. I do that occasionally as well.
Here's one!
I use X only when I need a GUI (ie xdvi, xfig, netscape or xevil2 or
something). Most work, programming, word processing (LaTeXing),
programming I do in the virtual consoles, at a nice, hgh resolution
(132x50). It's really good.
Under X I use FVWM2 (not the '95 look---that's ugly).
-Ed
> It's nice to have options. :-) (And this is without additional
> software, even.)
>
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random multi-consoled OS here
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold | Edward
Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ok I'll give a little...but just a little...
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:10:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:40:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> As of Mandrake 7.2:
Be careful, somebody is probably going to call you a 'penguinista' if
you keep this up.
>> 4. Monitor/Video card easy.
XFree v.4?
> I think the video card compatibility situation has actually been
> pretty good for the most part over the past two years or so. The
> main thing that's new in Mandrake is 3d support OOTB for some video
> cards.
2D support has always been good, IMHO, except for certain backwards
vendors, most of which have seen the light and/or succumbed to
pressure.
I still can't seem to get 3D to work proberly with my Banshee card,
neither under XFree86 v4 on Debian, nor on Windows98. I'll try a new
DRI kernel module (as opposed to compiling it in).
XFree v4 does improve things a lot, IMHO, in particular keys are set
up properly, and all my xmodmap fixes rendered useless - finally.
>> Ok... So now go and enjoy your Turkey day and make sure and hug
>> your mom or wife for getting up at 6am to start the miserable bird
> I'm vegetarian.
You can still hug your mom/wife, you know.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:26:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > > [snip]
> >
> > Your attempts to make this seem important when it's not are
admirable,
> > but seem a little misguided. You haven't provided a single example
of
> > what could happen to your data in the event of a reboot.
> >
>
> It's so obvious I didn't think it was necessary.
> However let's take an elementary CS textbook example.
>
> You know, I believe, that a server is not intended only as a file
> server, but as a real server, performing remote service.
>
> Well take any activity where transactions are performed, and your
server
> is remotely requested to update say your bank account because you've
> drawn a 1000$ check. Well, your balance is in the server, the request
is
> neatly queued in the same server.
BEGIN TRANSACTION
If my bank does not use some sort of relational database to store my
account information, and uses transactions to ensure that only
transactions that complete successfully are committed to the database,
then I won't bank with them.
COMMIT TRANSACTION
>
> If you're dealing with an NT server, the actual operation will be
> delayed by an undetermined amount of time, because NT doesn't provide
> record locking, but only exclusive file access, so it must complete
one
> operation at a time (open file, seek, write, close). The actual delay
> will depend on the number of active clients.
BEGIN TRANSACTION
So you are proposing that your bank will do each transaction in a
single file, rather than in a database? I credit my bank with a little
more sense than that obviously.
COMMIT TRANSACTION
>
> The client receives an acknowledgment that the request has been
entered
> and may go on. But it will keep record of this request.
BEGIN TRANSACTION
Yes, it will be either in the transaction logs (on disk), where it is
safe in the event of a reboot, or written to the database, where it is
also safe in the event of a reboot. Possibly you would have some
problem if the information was waiting to be written to the disk from
cache.
COMMIT TRANSACTION
>
> If let's say one hour later the server is still running, the client
may
> safely assume that the request has found his way to updating your
> account and may forget about it (or better record it somewhere else,
but
> that's a detail).
BEGIN TRANSACTION
OK, now lets suppose that your (Linux) server has been running for
496.999 days at the time you perform your transaction, and rolls over
to 000 when you check - what happens then? Same problem yes?
Now what mechanism does the ordinary end user have to perform this
check, and would they know about it, and would they even bother? No.
They would assume that given a success message, that indicated success
and their data was safe. Assuming that the system was based on a
reliable transaction based system, that's a reasonable assumption to
make
COMMIT TRANSACTION
>
> But if it turns out that the system has been rebooted, there's no
quick
> way to tell if the system crashed before updating your account, or
> after. The only way is to perform a check of all the transactions
> requested a reasonable amount of time before the last time the system
> was known to be up, checking if they have been fully recorded or not.
>
> That way the bank is positive not to loose money, and you're safe from
> having your check subtracted twice from your account.
>
> Keep in mind that all the clients will perform the same check at the
> same time, engulfing your server for a substantial amount of time.
>
BEGIN TRANSACTION
Or the bank can perform the check as the server is rebooting,
discarding all transactions that didn't complete successfully
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
> I have described one simple situation, but however you arrange it, if
a
> crash occurs you will have a number of transactions which may have
been
> completed or not.
>
BEGIN TRANSACTION
You have described a simple situation that just wouldn't happen.
COMMIT TRANSACTION
> Well uptime counter rolling over to zero will trigger exactly that
> sequence, which is highly undesirable, because it engulfs your server,
> making it unavailable for useful purposes, and it is error prone,
> because it uses procedures which are difficult to debug.
>
BEGIN TRANSACTION
Again, the situation where your box is up for 496.9999 days, what
happens then. Same problem, different lenght of time. Here your
beloved uptime works against you yes?
COMMIT TRANSACTION
> On the other hand, do you think it wise to ignore it? It's possible
that
> the server just crashes in the vicinity of the overflow of the
counter,
> so how can you tell a real reboot from a fake one? Will you add a
manual
> override? Tell all the agencies to override the crash recovery
procedure
> at 11:12 am of next friday? Will the server broadcast an override
> message? And if it crashes just after that? Or even just because of
> that? (poorly debugged procedure, because it's hard to debug) Doesn't
> seem reasonable.
>
> The only way out is to program a scheduled server reboot, so that
> clients are properly put in standby, at a rate higher than the uptime
> overflow.
>
> Which means once a year for a Unix system, which may be reasonable
> anyhow, for preventive maintenance purposes, and once a month for an
NT
> system, which is only required because of a poor implementation of the
> uptime function.
So how many systems do you know of that implement a client watching the
system uptime as advertised by the network stack as a way of enforcing
transactional integrity? It seems like a pretty failure prone way to
do things...
>
> For some obscure reason Winadvocates presume that people criticizing
MS
> are fully incompetent, and do it just for spite. But the truth is that
> the vast majority of those who say that Windows is crap have a very
> elementary motive: they've experienced that Windows is crap.
>
Well given your reasoning above, I'm not surprised you found it crap.
Now try again with a real world example please.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:28:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > > [snip]
> >
> > You also failed to answer my question about which particular
internet
> > standard you were referring to? Is it because there isn't one which
> > covers this?
> >
>
> Do you believe that netcraft keeps uptime statistics sending a
postcard
> to netsites, asking them what's their uptime?
>
> Or that they perform a standard Internet interrogation, which NT
> supports, but just answers with unreliable data?
>
> You're so anxious to show me wrong that you don't even stop a moment
to
> think.
OK, if it's a standard interrogation, it must be documented as such
somewhere yes? And you must be able to point me to a reference that
describes this standard?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:35:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
>
> Even with a BETA-TEST KERNAL, Purdue's Gould PN-9080 machines
> stayed up for 60+ days in 1985-1986.
>
Our mail server (restarted after hardware upgrade)
05/10/2000 15:22:26 Shutdown Prior uptime:104d
1h:31m:32s
Our file server (restarted after extended power failure)
29/10/2000 22:16:46 Abnormal Shutdown Prior uptime:168d 7h:25m:0s
Still, YMMV
> Face it. Microsoft NT (Neutered Technology) STILL is not ready
> for prime time.
>
Well some of us are capable of coaxing extended uptimes out of our
servers. Unix gurus would have us believe that it's rocket science,
but really it's not that hard
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
******************************
