Linux-Advocacy Digest #482, Volume #29 Fri, 6 Oct 00 05:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 2.4! (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Chris Sherlock)
Re: 2.4! (Steve Mading)
Re: To all you WinTrolls ("Todd")
Re: 2.4! ("Todd")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Todd")
Re: The real issue ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: Linux - - Troll (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: 2.4! (Gardiner Family)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 19:08:02 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Get a life huh? Who's the one spending so much time flaming Linux users
in an advocacy group?
lol! Talk about a hypocrite!
Chris
Todd wrote:
>
> "Jesper Krogh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Why even use Linux??
> >
> > If you re happy with using microsoft products, then fine with that.
> > Some other haven´t sold their soul to microsoft.
>
> Sold my soul? It's just an operating system. Get a life.
>
> > But, I guess you have never felt the power of a unix workstation in your
> hands,
>
> Huh? I *own* an HP K-Series Unix server and a NeXT TurboColor station.
>
> > thats why you can clain this. When you have, you wouldn´t even think about
> > turning back.
>
> I didn't say 'why even use UNIX', I said "Why even use **Linux**?".
>
> There is a huge difference.
>
> Although, Windows 2000 provides benefits over UNIX as well, although, UNIX
> has better hardware available for it. When Windows 2000 is ported to a
> 64-bit architecture...
>
> -Todd
>
> > --
> > ./Jesper Krogh.
> > The Goal is world domination, no more, no less.
> > This means that your PC should run linux too.
> >
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 03:31:30 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rj4si$mvq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : And what makes you think that apache is used more widely? I don't think
> : there are any statistics to back this up, unless of course you mean
"More
> : domain names are hosted on apache servers",
>
> Netcraft goes down to the level of individual hostnames, not domain
> names. (so, for example, thishost.somebiz.com and thathost.somebiz.com
> get counted as two hits even though they are the same domain name.)
> Are you trying to imply that if an IIS site uses multiple machines
> masquerading behind one hostname to serve multiple requests that
> this should be counted as multiple IIS servers? Well, if that kind
> of metric would help IIS becuase IIS is in that sort of situation
> more often than Apache, then I put forth that this makes IIS look
> bad, not good. Why all the extra servers to run one site? What's
> the matter? One machine can't handle it?
You are correct, I meant hostname, not domain name. My point was that we
don't know for sure how many of those hostnames are running on the same
server. If they point to the same IP address, it could be figured out, but
that's not necessarily the case. You can have multiple IP's on a single NIC
(or multiple NICs). Netcraft doesn't even try to filter out unique IP's.
I'm sorry though, one machine simply cannot handle the loads of large sites
which can move Terrabytes a day (Microsoft.com claims to transfer more than
6 terrabytes a day with over 4.1 million unique users a day)
You really think one machine can handle that load? Two machines? 10?
(remember, we're not just talking about transfering pages, but dynamic
content, SQL server queries, site searches, etc..)
> : but that doesn't mean it's used
> : in more physical servers. It may be, but I don't see any evidence to
> : support that other than wishful thinking.
>
> : Netcrafts numbers simply do not paint the full picture.
>
> True. But the full picture doesn't help your case one bit. It
> makes it look even worse. (If you take only the top 100
> sites, as measured by traffic, then the apache percentage gets
> even larger than in the general population of webservers.)
Well, I can't think of a site that has more traffic that MS. And that's not
even counting Hotmail and bCentral. IBM's web site runs on Domino. Yahoo
runs on some unknown web server running on FreeBSD. CNet runs on Netscape's
server (as of course does Netscape).
Which top 100 sites, as measured by traffic run Apache again? I can't think
of many. About the only high traffic sites I know of running Apache are
places like Slashdot, and they wouldn't even register on the top 100.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 19:20:21 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
The English may have been bad, but the sentiments sure speak volumes!
I totally agree. I can't beleive how many people post to this newsgroup
that are died in the wool Windows users! If Linux was that bad and
beneath their contempt, why are they posting here?
On the other hand, how many people crosspost to the Windows advocacy
newsgroups? That seems pretty stupid to me!
Chris
"David.L" wrote:
>
> This is to all of you morons who write posts such as: "Linux sucks",
> "Windows Rulez" and such in linux newsgroups.
>
> Almost every linux user i know including myself has used Win9* Win 2000
> etc... either at work, at school or at home. I used Windows NT/Win 9*
> four years before i switched over to Linux. I have even tried out
> Windows 2000, and yes Windows 2000 is pretty good //by Windoze
> standards//. So i, and most linux users has had first hand experience
> with Windoze and know at least the basics. But the morons who write
> "Linux sucks" have usually not even seen a Linux screenshot. So before
> you write "Linux sucks" try out Linux for an year or two. Until you have
> done that shut up!!!
>
> //Sorry for the bad english//
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: 6 Oct 2000 08:18:59 GMT
pp@p wrote:
: In article <8rj71c$mvq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve says...
:
:>
:>Never would you see a good UNIX programmer using something like
:>DWORD in his code.
: use Java, and you never have to worry about any of this.
: for example, in Java, an int is the same size everywhere.
: java solves many portability problems.
It "solves" them by defining a limiting archetecture
standard and not letting the code break out of it. Five
years from now a 32-bit integer is going to look pretty
silly as the default size of all ints when all the hardware
is 64-bit. It's far better to just say things like:
if( bignum_in_string.isBiggerThan(MaxIntOnThisMachine) )
{
error message here
}
than to define limiting standards. It would have been
far better if Java had simply said that you can define
any int size you want (say, for example, "I want a 48 bit
int", and it will work. (Then the JVM on one archetecture
might implement that as a 64 bit int with the most sig bits
unused, or it might implement it as 3 seperate 16 bit words
chained together, or whatever it needs to do on that
archetecture.). )
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:36:56 +0800
Hmmm... have to agree with what you said.
I am called a wintroll here, but I also have RedHat Linux 6.2.
I've compiled the kernel a couple times and done this and that. Linux ain't
bad. I've used it now for quite a while (ever since 6.2 was released).
But it isn't nearly as good as Windows 2000 nor as feature complete. Heck,
most UNIX are way better than Linux as well. For example, HP-UX / Solaris /
FreeBSD.
-Todd
"David.L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This is to all of you morons who write posts such as: "Linux sucks",
> "Windows Rulez" and such in linux newsgroups.
>
> Almost every linux user i know including myself has used Win9* Win 2000
> etc... either at work, at school or at home. I used Windows NT/Win 9*
> four years before i switched over to Linux. I have even tried out
> Windows 2000, and yes Windows 2000 is pretty good //by Windoze
> standards//. So i, and most linux users has had first hand experience
> with Windoze and know at least the basics. But the morons who write
> "Linux sucks" have usually not even seen a Linux screenshot. So before
> you write "Linux sucks" try out Linux for an year or two. Until you have
> done that shut up!!!
>
> //Sorry for the bad english//
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:38:39 +0800
"Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Get a life huh? Who's the one spending so much time flaming Linux users
> in an advocacy group?
>
> lol! Talk about a hypocrite!
I don't talk about OSes as if they were a religion. And I don't spend a lot
of time here. And I spend most of my night time out with my friends,
drinking, and picking up on the opposite sex. Of course, out here, you
gotta be careful when you see a beautiful 'woman'... but that is a different
story altogether :)
-Todd
>
> Chris
>
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > "Jesper Krogh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Why even use Linux??
> > >
> > > If you re happy with using microsoft products, then fine with that.
> > > Some other haven´t sold their soul to microsoft.
> >
> > Sold my soul? It's just an operating system. Get a life.
> >
> > > But, I guess you have never felt the power of a unix workstation in
your
> > hands,
> >
> > Huh? I *own* an HP K-Series Unix server and a NeXT TurboColor station.
> >
> > > thats why you can clain this. When you have, you wouldn´t even think
about
> > > turning back.
> >
> > I didn't say 'why even use UNIX', I said "Why even use **Linux**?".
> >
> > There is a huge difference.
> >
> > Although, Windows 2000 provides benefits over UNIX as well, although,
UNIX
> > has better hardware available for it. When Windows 2000 is ported to a
> > 64-bit architecture...
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > > --
> > > ./Jesper Krogh.
> > > The Goal is world domination, no more, no less.
> > > This means that your PC should run linux too.
> > >
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 16:40:46 +0800
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:A4JC5.4088$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "David M. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I beg to differ. Personal web server is based on IIS 5.0 under
Windows
> > > 2000, and it SMOKES apache in almost every way.
> >
> > Which is obviously why Apache is used so much more widely, right?
Hmmmm... I saw a recent poll by only Fortune 500 companies... the majority
uses IIS 4.0 or IIS 5.0.
-Todd
>
> And what makes you think that apache is used more widely? I don't think
> there are any statistics to back this up, unless of course you mean "More
> domain names are hosted on apache servers", but that doesn't mean it's
used
> in more physical servers. It may be, but I don't see any evidence to
> support that other than wishful thinking.
>
> Netcrafts numbers simply do not paint the full picture.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 17:44:17 +0900
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:15:17 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
>> That doesn't answer the question. It also doesn't address why one would
>> necessarily want a console wannabe.
>
> For home users, computer Jane, the console is a dead issue. In case you
> haven't noticed the console is dead. GUI's are the future, at least in
> that market.
Uhh, I could be wrong here, but I think your thinking of the wrong sort of
console. Not the cli, but the sort of brain-dead, can't do anything it
hasn't been pre-programmed to do, not a real computer console - like a
playstation or "computer Jane's" windows machine.
>>>different hacks to perform the same function. You can't even get your
>>>100 different Windowmanagers to import each others menues properly.
>>
>> Actually, your information regarding this aspect is as faulty as your
>> information regarding anything else linux.
>
> You didn't answer the question.
I personally have never tried, because I use KDE mostly. Also, never touch
the "K" button. No need to. Even if you are correct (that Mandrake cannot
do this), it is an unimportant example. Personally, I find Win98's lack of
multiple desktops to be a bigger drawback.
>
>>>Try it under Mandrake 7.1 sometime.
>>
>> Mandrake 7.1 is "just the OS". Why would I expect it to come with
>> "everything". WinDOS doesn't come like that. So if we are going to
>> compare bare installs, Windows automatically loses.
>
>
> Again you didn't answer the question.
No, he (or she) didn't, but you might try explaining why this is important
to you. Windows does not even offer the choice of different window
managers / environments, much less the ability to import from each other's
menu each time you switch.
(I am glad Linux wm don't do that - I want to change that stuff myself, I
do not want
or need the os to do it for me.)
>>>
>>>> You have not proved your point in the least.
>>>
>>>Sure I have. I can do far more with WIndows applications. normal stuff
>>
>> No you haven't. You've just split one vague accusation up into several
>> vague accusations. You've not supported any of them.
>
> And you have a problem answering direct questions.
>
>> Repeating something more times does not constitute proof.
>>
>>[deletia]
>
> Neither does statements like Mandrake is just the OS...
So, please tell us exactly what it is that that mp3 program does for you
that makes you so proud of it. In a previous post, you mentioned "scanning
your hard disk for new mp3s" (or something like that). Why do you need
that? Do you not know where you put new mp3s? Do new songs just appear on
your disk at random intervals?
With XMMS, if you really want it to find all the mp3s on your disk, just
choose your home directory and click on "add all files in directory".
And, I don't know what you are whining about this remembering your
directory crap - XMMS saves your playlist when you close it and loads it
again when you start. No need to do directory surfing unless you are
changing playlists. Speaking of which, MS Word (i have to use it at work)
defaults to the damn "my documents" directory - which means three or four
clicks to save a file (cause I don't use that stupid directory). Isn't
this what you are complaining about linux programs doing?
Just out of curiousity: you post many, many messages in COLA, all about
something you obviously don't like. Why? I am an athiest, but I don't post
in religous newsgroups, trying to convert people. Nor do I, a Linux user,
post in Windows groups (unless responding to someone who cross-posted),
trying to show everyone what a POS windows is. So, why are you here? Is
this a hobby of yours? Must take up a lot of your time.
If you are here to actually try to convince / convert people, try giving
more facts. But don't hold your breath.
--
Osugi Sakae
a free man
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 19:50:59 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux - - Troll
Fecking Hill wrote:
>
> >>>>Flaagg escribió en artículo:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm downloading all 640 megs of the Linux Mandrake 7 ISO. I
> >>>>> just might install it, too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don't ask me why.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'd reinstall on *this* computer, but that would mean losing
> >>>>my pr0n archive hard drive. Two gigs, daily downloads and
> >>>>I still haven't found any porn stars with clean fingernails.
> >>>>
>
> Unix suxks
What a sterling opinion! Despite the fact that no facts were given, and
only two words were typed, there is still a spelling mistake.
> Gibber
Quite.
Chris
> Sig? What Sig?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 08:47:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You're a post-modernist imbecile.
Hehe. That's funny. It's the same guy who tried to argue that
there's an absolute standard for beauty and elegance, remember?
Removing that qualifier would definitely improve the truth
value of that statement.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 22:09:17 +1300
with this alpha-windows nt, howmany removed the alpha native UNIX in favour of
Windows NT? just out of curiousity
matt
Steve Mading wrote:
> Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> ...and Todd used the keyboard:
> :> >
> :> >Although, Windows 2000 provides benefits over UNIX as well, although,
> : UNIX
> :> >has better hardware available for it. When Windows 2000 is ported to a
> :> >64-bit architecture...
> :>
> :> ...which won't happen, because as you say, you prefer Intel chipware
> :> over slow PPC architecture, and "nobody wants Alpha, not even for
> :> UNIX"...
> :>
> :> How's SPARC support going? Is there a running beta for IA64? Is it
> :> available? How's ARM? Any RISC machine _AT_ _ALL_????
>
> : Why would they do one? The market has already spoken by rejecting the PPC
> : and Alpha versions of NT. Microsoft made a commercial decision (they are in
> : the business of making money after all) that it wasn't worth them continuing
> : with support for non-Intel architectures. Linux is somewhat different in
> : this respect, as the money making incentive isn't there and ports seem to be
> : done for love, so commercial restrictions don't come into it.
>
> To be fair, you have to admit that there's a reason nobody wanted
> those NT versions for non-Intel hardware - The Windows world is
> too tied to Intel, such that a non-Intel Windows is less useful.
> Even if Windows itself is fully ported, that's not enough if all
> the 3rd party apps the customer wants are still shipped as closed
> binaries that were only made for Intel. Linux is more successful
> than that on multiple archetectures *because* of the dissemation of
> source code that is common in many of the apps as well as the OS itself.
> Then there's the fact that UNIX programmers have been dealing with the
> issues of cross-archetecture programming for ages, so for them doing an
> archetecture port is more comfortable and familiar than it is to the
> average Windows programmer. (Starting with the simple concepts of
> always using archetecture-independant abstractions of things that
> depend on binary endianness, or the size of a default int, and so on.)
>
> Never would you see a good UNIX programmer using something like
> DWORD in his code.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
