Linux-Advocacy Digest #566, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Netscape review. ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Whistler review. ("Simon Palko")
Re: Whistler review. ("Simon Palko")
Re: Whistler review. ("Simon Palko")
Re: Whistler review. ("Simon Palko")
Re: Don't believe the hype ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Major shift (Stuart Fox)
Re: Major shift (Stuart Fox)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Whistler review. (Rob Barris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: 30 Nov 2000 12:48:32 -0600
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <900dqu$5pbqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well, I've tried netscape. (6, windows version. On Whistler 2296
> >machine)
> >> > Just as a note, Whistler being a beta release of windows might skew
the
> >> > results, but I don't think it would do such a degree as to nullify
the
> >> > results that I post.
> >> > Even if you half the numbers I give, it's still *bad* for Netscape.
> >>
> >> I DON'T CARE!!!
> >>
> >> I will still continue to run my Netscape 4.75 Browser on Linux which
has
> >> performed for me better than anything MS running Internet Exploder has
> >ever
> >> done. Once Mozilla comes out with a version with debugging turned off,
I
> >will
> >> be switching to it as soon as it is available.
> >
> >You've the source, why don't you turn the debugging off yourself?
> >
> >> If you don't want intelligent people responding to this propaganda,
keep
> >it off
> >> the linux and mac newsgroups.
> >
> >Netscape is a multi platform product.
> >Whistler is a direct competition to both Mac & Linux.
>
> No, Whistler is the product of a Monopoly. There is no
> competition.
What an idiot you are.
IF that is true then I guess everyone else should just pack up and go home
because it's a sell out success before it's released and obviously W2K is
the product of a monopoly, according to your logic, and therefore any stats
that show anything except W2K the overwhelmingly most popular in use OS are
totally bogus.
it's so stupid to listen to people screaming that MS is the ultimate godlike
monopolizing demon ravaging the industry ... and there are still other
companies quite alive and well out there making billions. Youd think that
all the money would be pouring into MS's pockets and everyone else holding
their hands out for donations like linux-IPOs...
What you probably mean is that both Mac & Linux are no competition TO
Whister which I can understand. Even in beta form Whistler is a far better
OS.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:10:29 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Palko wrote:
> >
> > That's like saying that everyone's implementation of a Java VM is a
> > reverse-engineering because they're only implementing the spec!
>
>
> the published JAVA spec is **COMPLETE**.
> The published Windows API is INCOMPLETE.
If you mean things like the NTAPI, then yes, it's incomplete. But AFAIK,
all of Win32 is out there for the looking.
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:24:36 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Palko wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Simon Palko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Bennetts family wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > > » Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly
not
> > > > crash
> > > > > > hot,
> > > > > > > » either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a
new
> > > > paint
> > > > > > job. And
> > > > > > > » that *matters*.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, sorry, I know. I don't doubt that 2k is more stable than
NT4,
> > and
> > > > > > Whistler will be even better, but still, there's too many bodge
> > fixes,
> > > > and
> > > > > > the whole thing desparately needs a rewrite from scratch.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would hav ZERO problem with Windows...if someone would come up
with
> > > > > an implementation COMPLETELY FREE of development by Microsoft
> > personnel.
> > > > >
> > > > > If MS thinks that they are so hot, why don't they just release the
> > > > > API spec, and challenge someone to come up with something
better....
> > > > > and pay the winner a prize
> > > >
> > > > Are you REALLY this dense? The whole Win32 API is freely available
for
> > > > ANYONE who wants to look at it. Have you heard of WINE? It's an
> > > > implementation of Win32 on linux (may be on other *nixen now,
haven't
> > > > checked up on it in a while).
> > >
> > > WINE is an attempt at reverse-engineering, NOT a clean-room
> > > implementation from a published spec.
> >
> > Win32 IS A PUBLISHED SPEC.
> >
> > It's freely available, with EVERY SINGLE API CALL DOCUMENTED.
>
> Really. That must be why there are so many undocumented APIs.
There are *no* undocumented *Win32* APIs that I, or anyone else I've ever
seen, is aware of. No one has *EVER* presented me *ANY* evidence of the
existance of these, which would be trivial to do with a debugger that traps
calls made. There *ARE* undocumented *NTAPI* calls. These are meant as
hooks into the lower level system, and not for application use. I question
whether they can actually even be called "APIs", as they're not meant for
use by applications. The Win32 subsystem, OS/2 subsystem, POSIX subsystem,
and WOW all map their calls in one way or another to NTAPI, IIRC. MS has a
habit of changing this with different releases, and even on service packs,
so its understandable as to why they don't document it for general
development. They don't want people developing for it. Just program for
one of the higher-level APIs and you're fine.
This argument has been brought up time and time again, and I've yet to see a
SINGLE piece of evidence that any software out there makes calls to APIs in
Win32 that are undocumented. Please try to think a little beyond your
typical Linux FUD. Linux is a great OS, wonderful for those that want to
learn about how OSes actually *work*. It's not, however, the be-all,
end-all of OS-dom, and other OSes that take a different approach aren't
necessarily *wrong* just because they're *different*.
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:30:28 -0500
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <900tsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Palko wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Bennetts family wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >> > >
> >> > > [..]
> >> > > » Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not
> >crash
> >> > hot,
> >> > > » either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new
> >paint
> >> > job. And
> >> > > » that *matters*.
> >> > >
> >> > > You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, sorry, I know. I don't doubt that 2k is more stable than NT4,
and
> >> > Whistler will be even better, but still, there's too many bodge
fixes,
> >and
> >> > the whole thing desparately needs a rewrite from scratch.
> >>
> >> I would hav ZERO problem with Windows...if someone would come up with
> >> an implementation COMPLETELY FREE of development by Microsoft
personnel.
> >>
> >> If MS thinks that they are so hot, why don't they just release the
> >> API spec, and challenge someone to come up with something better....
> >> and pay the winner a prize
> >
> >Are you REALLY this dense? The whole Win32 API is freely available for
> >ANYONE who wants to look at it. Have you heard of WINE? It's an
> >implementation of Win32 on linux (may be on other *nixen now, haven't
> >checked up on it in a while).
>
> Wine's problems in development all centre around the *fact* that
> the win32 API is not really documented. It's at best partially
> documented. What's more, a huge amount of apps do not restrict
> themselves to this api, in particular microsoft's own. So your
> statement is utterly misleading - there is not enough information
> to replicate Windows published. If there were, Wine would have been
> completed ages ago.
I'm getting tired of answering this, so this will be the last time, and then
I'm putting this entire thread in my killfile. Win32 is a HUGE API.
MASSIVE. GIGANTIC. And really freaking bloated. It's also documented VERY
WELL. The problem is, just because it tells you *what* a call is supposed
to do, it doesn't tell you *how* it does it. This is the main hangup with
WINE. It's a relatively new project, you know, and it's really a massive
undertaking. I don't doubt that they'll continue to improve it. Hell, I've
seen people running IE5 under WINE. That's damn impressive.
And most Windows apps DO restrict themselves to this API. Or are you
suggesting there's a large number of apps out there using bits of the OS/2
or POSIX subsystems? Surely you aren't suggesting that many apps use the
NTAPI, as that *changes* between OS releases, and programs would break
between OSes, let alone WinNT/2k apps not working on Win9x?
Is there some other hidden API that even MS doesn't know about? Or that no
Windows programmer I've *ever* spoken to knows about? Or are you just
FUDing?
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:37:41 -0500
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <900tsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Palko wrote:
> Wine's problems in development all centre around the *fact* that
> the win32 API is not really documented. It's at best partially
> documented. What's more, a huge amount of apps do not restrict
> themselves to this api, in particular microsoft's own. So your
> statement is utterly misleading - there is not enough information
> to replicate Windows published. If there were, Wine would have been
> completed ages ago.
And by this logic, Mozilla should have been completed ages ago as well,
since implementation and debugging really doesn't take any time if the
spec's well documented, right?
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Don't believe the hype
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:51:52 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have now used Linux for 6 months (Redhat 6.0)
>
> According to the press its a stable operating system - YOU MUST BE
> JOKING.
>
> yp / ldap (take your pick - you will end up trying both!) just don't
> work.
Have you tried asking someone with adminstrative experience
how to get yp to work?
If yp and/or ldap didn't work, then how come there are so many
places USING yp and ldap on Linux?
>
> Gnome leaks and locks up frequently, machines reboot and run out of
> memory.
Then use KDE. At least you have a ***CHOICE****
>
> In short most of the software may be free but it certainly isn't
> finished.
Compared to Microshaft products, which are expensive, and even
farther from being finished.
>
> If you value your time then Linux is not free.
If you value your time, then Microsoft is even more expensive.
>
> Oh yes and I haven't even touched on gdb (use Visual Studio then try
> gdb ; its like the dark ages - again IT DOES NOT WORK).
>
> I would have loved to have found linux was stable and usable however
> the truth is it lacks quality.
It sounds to me that your primary problem is that you don't
know how to read a man page.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
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: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:52:24 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > In article <7LrV5.101$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I have talked to developers, and their own opinion was the the Win32
API
> > > > is a bitch to write programs around. Win32 API is a mish-mash of
> > > > different parts thrown together in a blender, when compared with
cleanly
> > > > written API's such as the ones included with BeOS, which are fully
> > > > documented, for real!
> > > >
> > > > kiwiunixman
> > >
> > > The word "bitch" doesn't even come close....
> >
> > Why am I a bitch? If I forgot to mention Linux, then, I'm sorry. Linux
>
> No, he means that your use of the word bitch in the following statement:
> "...their own opinion was the the Win32 API is a bitch to write programs
around."
>
> was an UNDERSTATEMENT.
Thanks Aaron, I'm already arguing semantics in another thread at the moment
<g>
BTW, kiwiunixman, replace the word "bitch" with the words "Fucking
Nightmare". That would describe programming around the Win32 API. The only
thing WORSE than programming around the Win32 API, besides a root canal, is
programming around the Win16 API. The only thing worse than programming
around the Win16 API is programming with the Microsoft Foundation Classes -
A totally trashed marriage between the two, poorly wrapped up in C++
classes. I could go on and on with this....
<snip>
--
Tom Wilson
Go home Al....
Game over, man!
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:00:41 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 30 Nov 2000
05:37:51 GMT;
>In any market, the lead vendor doesn't need to worry about this. MS
>doesn't worry about making it easy to exchange documents for exactly the
>same reason that Sun doesn't make the JVM a better environment for other
>languages - They don't have to.
The law says they do. Your consideration of "the lead vendor" is that
they are allowed to monopolize, because the free market often cannot
prevent them from doing so. However, it doesn't matter *how much*
market power (market share) you have, you're still not allowed to
monopolize. Whether a producer "has to" do something is predicated on
the consideration that what will force them to do it is the market's
ability to acquire alternative products if they don't. When a "lead
vendor" doesn't worry about whether their customers would choose an
alternative, based on their ability to control prices or exclude
competition to the point where the customers don't or can't choose an
alternative, they are not competing, they are monopolizing, and that is
always an illegal act, and therefore something I'd say they truly do
have to worry about.
>Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:90417r$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Only if you never need to exchange a file with anyone else.
>> >
>> > But I do, and I never had a problem with it.
>> > For crying out loud, *Wordpad* can handle word 6 documents.
>> > And StarOffice has better be able to handle word 6 documents.
>> > So, why wouldn't I be able to exchange files?
>>
>> What is it about the Microsoft mentality that makes it impossible to
>> understand that 'exchange' is a bi-directional process?
>>
>> Les Mikesell
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major shift
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:48:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The limit per-node is not based on the Solaris OS but the SMP
> limitation, companies such as SGI have adopted a new standard called
> NUMA that allows for considerably more processors in a box.
>
I'd hardly call NUMA new - it's been around for years...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major shift
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:49:26 GMT
In article <9017g3$ji5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
> Actually, no. ONE sun starfire NODE can have 64 CPUs. You can have
many
> hundreds all running parallel in an install. IBM makes machines with
> many multiples of 64 CPUs per node. Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, etc. can
all
> recognize many hundreds of CPUs actually.
>
> Windows absolutely, positively, one hundred percent CAN NOT.
>
> And it never, ever will be able to; because compaq will never make a
> machine that big.
>
You've obviously never seen it running on Sequent (now owned by IBM)
NUMA-Q boxes. With their custom HAL they were running 64 CPU boxes on
NT 4.0...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:54:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Lyday wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > "." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Not to mention the OS's that don't report uptimes at all,
> > > > > such as OS/2, OS/390, SunOS4, NetWare...
Uptimes are available on OS/390 (when open edition is used, but it only
referrs to the life of that particular LPAR. OS/390 has an average
uptime equivalent of over 1 YEAR. About the only time you completely
reboot OS/390 is if you make a firmware change. The LPARs have a
shorter life-cycle, but even this is on the order of nearly a year.
> There are many ways to get uptimes out of OS/2, even over the web. I
> can place a simple counter on a web page that will tell me when the
> system started.
OS/2 depends on version and application mix. If you have OS/2 2.0 with
lots of applications, the MTBF is about 5-7 days. If you have Warp 4.0
working as a single-application server, the uptime can be over a month.
> > None of this is particularly relevant here.
> > Most rational folks who have had dealings with
> > Netware, OS/2, SunOS, OS/390, etc. realize that
> > all of these are phenomenally more stable and
> > reliable than NT.
Many of these systems also have good MTBF numbers.
While this is only average times, it's pretty easy to
see a spread along a bell curve.
> > In addition, most users of OS/2 realize that it
> > is not as stable as Unix and accept that.
Again, OS/2 4.0 can be pretty stable. But when you compare function
points against MTBF it's very hard to beat UNIX.
> > There is no argument whatsoever that Netware is a
> > highly stable OS.
This is partly due to the fact that Netware limits the number of
function points available. Netware doesn't try to be an "all in one"
solution, and focuses on doing a few things very well.
> > SunOS is Unix and any Unix is about as stable as
> > any other one.
UNIX stability can be impacted by a number of factors. Many people
prefer to get a 4-5 E-450 machines rather than one E-10K machine. Some
kernels, like Solaris, have very strict control and tuning of memory
allocation, disk parameters, and processor allocation. Others, like
Linux tend to support a more dynamic "self-tuning" model. Each has it's
strengths and limitations.
> > No one is arguing that any *nix is unstable or
> > unreliable.
What makes*nix particularly notorious is that it can be very flexible,
running hundreds of diverse applications, while still retaining
rediculously high levels of reliability.
> > It is a well-known fact that OS/390 is known for the five
> > 9's in uptime. That is, it is up about 99.999% of the time. OS/390
> > is down for about 5 minutes out of a year, while Unix is usually
> > down for about 25 hours.
This can be a bit misleading. OS/390 breaks the machine into logical
machines called LPARS. Each LPAR may require tuning and tweaking, and
when clustering is needed, the LPARs can be clustered as if they were
independent machines. Also, 25 hours seems a bit high. That would be
99.7%, which would be more like Windows NT.
Most UNIX systems are down for an average of about 30 minutes per year.
This is more like 99.994% which is typical for Linux. HA UNIX servers
which use a message passing scheme such as MPI or PVM (also used in
Beowulf clusters) get down to 15 minutes/year or about 99.997%
And by the way, 5 minutes/year is five nines (mtbf-mttr/mtbf). This is
also measured as down time of 10 part/million. 1 year MTBF would be
365*24*60=525600. 5 minutes downtime/year would give uptime of 99.999
which would be 10 parts per million. Downtime is easier to calculate
1000000*MTTR/MTBF. In this case 9.51 parts per million for HA/UNIX.
The Linux and UNIX systems drop to 57 parts per million.
NT drops to 2954 parts per million. And Windows 2000, which is touted
as ten times more reliable than NT is 295 parts per million. Real
numbers seem to put Windows 2000 at more like 700 parts/million.
Most UNIX vendors support clustering, which means that they can take a
group of loosly coupled (LAN) processors and distribute the load across
all of the available servers.
> > That would make OS/390 approximately 300 times
> > (!) more stable/reliable than *nix.
> > The argument, instead, is that NT is
> > a stable and reliable OS, with
> > vehement opinion on both sides.
Microsoft itself has acknowledged that NT isn't really
reliable enough to be competitive with other versions of
UNIX. This is why the went to all the effort to add MTS,
MSMQ, and major enhancements to the Kernel to make Windows 2000
more reliable.
Current market level reliablity numbers are lower than Microsoft's
primarily because Microsoft uses only it's own MTS/MSMQ enabled
products in the product mix. Most 3rd party products don't use
these new features.
Most of the 3rd party vendors have pushed back, indicating that if
Windows 2000 doesn't support their product, that Windows 2000 shouldn't
be used for their servers. Meanwhile, they are sticking to UNIX
compatibile source code (JAVA/EJB, CORBA, MQSeries...) since they
knew that their products can scale to bigger UNIX systems if they go
this route. There isn't enough market to justify Windows 2000
specific ports.
> > I was addressing this argument when I
> > posted the URL. It seems the NT supporter
> > above is saying other OS's
> > are not very stable or reliable either.
It's quite likely that the NT supporter has never become a proficient
administrator of both NT an *nix systems. A proficient UNIX
administrator almost never reboots the system. Even neophyte NT turned
UNIX administrators can usually reach the point where they only boot
once a quarter in about 2-3 months.
> > "You're one too!" is hardly a
> > ringing endorsement for NT!
>
> Agreed.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
> * http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
> * Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Rob Barris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:04:44 GMT
In article <905d3b$m8f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Rob Barris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <903vm1$4jsk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>
> > > Unreasonable to say the least, unless you've a different defination
> > > of
> > > application than I do.
> >
> > Application == program. Something with a menu bar / user interface,
> > an event loop, and some purpose for which it was written. I don't
> > count
> > DLL's, plugins, scripts, etc.. something I can double click on and
> > run.
>
> On windows, that would be exe files. Let's see how many I've?
> 1103
> How many application do I use?
> About 100, top.
Sounds great.
I agree, there are some that I use every single day, and others that
I only use periodically, some perhaps once a year.
The issue I see is - how much work is it to move those apps to a new
machine? If you have 100 non-OS-included apps on Win32, how hard is it
to move them to your new system? From what I have seen, typically very
hard, unreliable or impossible.
> > > For that matter, assuming that the average install of a program is 10
> MB,
> > > 1500 applications installed would result in ~14.6 GB on your HD.
> > > 1,117 will be ~10 GB.
> >
> > If the average app took 10MB, your numbers might hold water.
> > However, many of my apps are under 1MB. I have a 12GB drive on this
> > laptop, about 4GB free. The Tools folder where most of my apps live,
> > is
> > about 2.5GB. There are several dozen apps scattered around in other
> > locations of course.
>
> Have you looked at photoshop lately?
> Bryce?
> Poser?
> Those are 100+ MB on your HD.
> You are on a mac, so I choose those.
> Photoshop comes with several executable files, I don't consider each of
> them
> to be an application.
Yep, those are big ones. Nope, I don't have many that are that big
(a few to be sure). I am sure you understand the difference between
"peak" and "average" however. I see you snipped the part about
GifBuilder fitting in under 700KB of disk.
> > The biggest app folder I have is probably CodeWarrior, with all of
> > the docs, Win32 libraries, MacOS libraries, etc etc, gets close to
> > 800MB.
> >
> > Think I'm making this stuff up ?
>
> No, but I don't think you've a defination of application that is even
> close
> to mine.
Share yours, perhaps I can make it clearer for you.
Rob
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
