Linux-Advocacy Digest #719, Volume #30 Thu, 7 Dec 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
i/o in linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux lacks (sfcybear)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: i/o in linux (mlw)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: windoze is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lacks (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
hey intel warns! I'd better hold off on buying a PC! (jtnews)
Re: Linux lacks ("Pedro Coto")
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lacks ("Pedro Coto")
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awful
Re: Several items (Re: Nothing to say but, WOW) (Stephen King)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:20:07 -0000
>Or you're a moron, which includes me, so please tell me more. I've
>never heard of this 'reiserfs'. I'm dying to find out what it stands
>for. What's the downside?
It is one possible future replacement for ext2 which includes filesystem
journalling so if the machine is switched off during use the system can
read the journal to know what was happening at the point of the power
loss and perform needed repairs without checking the whole filesystem.
It is included with several current distro's (mandrake and suse include it
but I don't know about others - I think suse even did part of the
development).
The downside is that some utilities which work directly on the filesystem
may
not cope with the differences (for example, fschk may have unpredictable
results).
It is still beta but I am not aware of any major problems ( I have not
looked at any
related websites or newsgroups recently though as my system seems to be
running
fine with it). No recovery distro's support it yet either (as far as I know)
and there are
no equivalents of the ext2 readers for windows yet.
There are other alternatives, 1 of which is ext3 which uses the same
structure as
ext2 and adds the journal onto this system but it needs manual installation
as no
distro's support it yet (needs kernel recompiling and config file editing).
This does
have the advantage of full ext2 compatibility.
>
>Last time I had a drive failure was a good seven years ago, at least.
>These days, they just get too small before they wear out.
>
Do your machines get 9 hours constant use per day 5 days per week like
our work machines (my home machine only gets 2 or 3 hours per day maximum
which I guess is why these have never failed). My home drives are also
usually
replaced long before wearing out (I still have my first 8 year old 40mb
drive
and it probably still works) but company drives are often used until death -
they just get shifted to less-used PC's when too small.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: i/o in linux
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 21:19:24 GMT
Hi.
I have two linux machine. One is a 450mhz machine with 256MB RAM using
ide hard drives. The other one is a two cpu 933mhz machine with 1 GB RAM
using scsi hard drives. The problem is that I am running a program
(sybase) on both machines and the io on the 450 machine seems much
faster then the 2 cpu machine. I check with sybase and it's not the
configuation there. Is there something on linux that I am missing and
need to configure???
Thanks for any help.
Shao
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 21:23:54 GMT
Well, It certanly looks like we have come a long way in the last couple
of years. The list of lacks has been cut down dramaticaly!
In article <tWQX5.447$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Pedro Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I do use GNU/Linux at my home since Slackware 1.0
> and at my work sice 1998 (here only for serving or
> firewalling purposes), and I like the evolution it is
> having because it is improving itself in each field, both
> as server or desktop machine.
>
> Still I do not use it as my only desktop machine for
> the fdollowing reasons all of them I hope will be
> soon solved (meanwhile I do use Windows) :
>
> 1) I play some games that can only be used
> under Windows (including Age of Empires
> II or Escape from Monkey Island).
>
> 2) I can only view at acceptable frames in my
> machine (K6-2/350 and 256MB SDRAM)
> MPEG-4 movies under Windows 98/Me.
>
> 3) I can only browse webpages (and besides I
> like it more than any other) with IE, knowing
> that I would be able to render each of them. Of
> course I do use Windows 2000 for this one,
> since IE under 98/Me is too unstable for me.
> Netscape 6 or Konqueror can't replace IE for
> me yet.
>
> 4) Outlook Express is my favourite news reader
> and Knode is not still ready in my opinion.
>
> 5) The same for KMail, I still prefer Eudora, though
> KMail almos satisfies me.
>
> 6) When I am going to write an article, I choose
> Word. Using AbiWord, KWord or StarOffice
> be it 5.1 or 5.2 is not for me.
>
> The fact is that despite the great evolution and
> improvements GNU/Linux has achieved, is (for
> me) still unusable at full experience for desktop
> purposes ... though it is getting nearer.
>
> At serving purposes, GNU/Linux is for me
> a good choice, even when still improving some
> crucial areas like Netfilter (firewalling purposes)
> or khttpd (kernel static HTTP server). And do not
> forget khttpd was born (if I am right) to reach NT
> performance on Mindcracft tests.
>
> Just saying which things GNU/Linux does lack
> nowadays to be used as a desktop machine (for me)
> together with a more easy configuration method (for
> just computer-users, no computers-advocates like
> you or me).
>
> In this post I am not saying Windows 98/Me or
> NT/2000 is the perfect OS, just I do use them for
> some things each, as well as I do use GNU/Linux for
> other things. And I am fed up of having to use
> multiple OS's to get what I want ... I guess when
> I will have the complete OS :-)
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:32:23 +1300
> If you can't get Office 2000 to run decently on your decent machinery
> then I certainly don't want any of your 'clues'.
If you consider the way office 2000 runs to be 'decent' then I doubt
you've the ability to absorb the clue in the first place.
Wheeeeeeee flinging doody back and forth
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:33:03 +1300
> Uhh.. Office 2000 runs faster than Office 97 and Office 95 before it.
> They've heavily componentized the code and made the memory footprint much
> smaller. It is measureably faster on a slow machine, and noticeable on a
> fast one.
Oh yep, and windows 2000 runs faster than win9x, especially for games.
MS told me so.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: i/o in linux
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 16:44:50 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I have two linux machine. One is a 450mhz machine with 256MB RAM using
> ide hard drives. The other one is a two cpu 933mhz machine with 1 GB RAM
> using scsi hard drives. The problem is that I am running a program
> (sybase) on both machines and the io on the 450 machine seems much
> faster then the 2 cpu machine. I check with sybase and it's not the
> configuation there. Is there something on linux that I am missing and
> need to configure???
>
You are giving very little information to solve your problem.
What kind of SCSI card, what motherboards, etc.
Typically I/O on a P.C. compatible is the same whether it is
multiprocessor or uniprocessor, the share the peripheral I/O bus. Some
mother board are better than others.
There are lots of reasons why one system will out perform another on
I/O. It isn't just memory and CPU speed.
What are the seek times on your disks? Under what load did you run your
benchmarks? Are you running a uniprocessor kernel on the multiprocessor
box? There are so many factors to consider.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:00:32 +0000
Steve Mading wrote:
> I think the reason for the hostility you see here is that people
> like me, who *like* the CLI command set, don't want to lose it.
> This is why there is hostility toward those who say the CLI is
> annoying and should be superceeded by the GUI. I'm all in favor
> of making the GUI better, but not at the expense of the CLI. In
> an ideal world, every single thing on the computer could be
> accessed either way, with the exception of those few apps that
> absolutely must be GUI by their very nature and don't make any
> sense as CLI apps (like The Gimp). I don't want to see the same
> thing happen to Linux that happened to Windows, where today the
> CLI has been crippled by the fact that many of the OS setup tools
> only exist in GUI form, and the on-line documentation of the CLI is
> sparse to none.
Though I don't like the UNIX CLI, where did I say I wanted to get rid of
it? I'd prefer both GUI and CLI were available, after all, scripts are only
done with a CLI.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windoze is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:01:35 +0000
Kenny Pearce wrote:
> software is irrelevant. As was previously mentioned, user side software
> CANNOT cause linux to crash... the program itself may crash (I must admit,
> I have had my X-server crash once. I came to the conclusion it was
> literally an act of God (and that's not a figure of speech)), but the
> kernel itself cannot crash due to the actions of user side software. You
> simply can't say that of Windoze.
Sorry, any OS can crash, Linux included.
I've seen Linux lock up tighter than a drum.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: 07 Dec 2000 14:22:52 -0700
"Pedro Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do use GNU/Linux at my home since Slackware 1.0
> and at my work sice 1998 (here only for serving or
> firewalling purposes), and I like the evolution it is
> having because it is improving itself in each field, both
> as server or desktop machine.
>
> Still I do not use it as my only desktop machine for
> the fdollowing reasons all of them I hope will be
> soon solved (meanwhile I do use Windows) :
Pedro, IMO, there's no good reason not to use Windows for the things
it's good at, and for using Linux for the things it's good at. That's
the benefit of having a dual boot machine. I use Windows as well, and
it does the job for most things I want out of a desktop, if somewhat
clunkily. I use Linux mainly to connect to our Solaris network here
at Motorola, and for software development. It's excellent for both of
those purposes.
Having said that let me address some of your points...
> 1) I play some games that can only be used
> under Windows (including Age of Empires
> II or Escape from Monkey Island).
I don't do games, but Windows is definately the winner here.
> 2) I can only view at acceptable frames in my
> machine (K6-2/350 and 256MB SDRAM)
> MPEG-4 movies under Windows 98/Me.
Agreed. Linux multimedia is not up to acceptable standards yet.
Additionally, there is no Quicktime port. That's Apple's fault, and
hopefully they will address it after OS X is released to the masses.
I won't hold my breath, though. Microsoft was supposedly working on a
UNIX port of Windows Media Player, and that's been nothing but vapor.
> 3) I can only browse webpages (and besides I
> like it more than any other) with IE, knowing
> that I would be able to render each of them. Of
> course I do use Windows 2000 for this one,
> since IE under 98/Me is too unstable for me.
> Netscape 6 or Konqueror can't replace IE for
> me yet.
I like IE as well. It's fast and is actually pretty stable even on
Win98. Konqueror is excellent on Linux though. I used to hate
surfing on Linux, now I don't mind it at all. There's still not
enough plugins, however.
> 4) Outlook Express is my favourite news reader
> and Knode is not still ready in my opinion.
I don't use OE at all, mainly because most virus writers target its
address book for propogation. I don't read news on Windows at all,
since no newsreader is as powerful as gnus under a UNIX.
> 5) The same for KMail, I still prefer Eudora, though
> KMail almos satisfies me.
I use Eudora as well under Windows. Under Linux I use gnus for mail
since I don't have to maintain separate tools for mail and news, and
gnus rocks for mailing lists.
> 6) When I am going to write an article, I choose
> Word. Using AbiWord, KWord or StarOffice
> be it 5.1 or 5.2 is not for me.
Blech, I basically hate all word processors, although I see the need
for them. I'd rather use LyX than any of those.
> The fact is that despite the great evolution and
> improvements GNU/Linux has achieved, is (for
> me) still unusable at full experience for desktop
> purposes ... though it is getting nearer.
>
> At serving purposes, GNU/Linux is for me
> a good choice, even when still improving some
> crucial areas like Netfilter (firewalling purposes)
> or khttpd (kernel static HTTP server). And do not
> forget khttpd was born (if I am right) to reach NT
> performance on Mindcracft tests.
>
> Just saying which things GNU/Linux does lack
> nowadays to be used as a desktop machine (for me)
> together with a more easy configuration method (for
> just computer-users, no computers-advocates like
> you or me).
>
> In this post I am not saying Windows 98/Me or
> NT/2000 is the perfect OS, just I do use them for
> some things each, as well as I do use GNU/Linux for
> other things. And I am fed up of having to use
> multiple OS's to get what I want ... I guess when
> I will have the complete OS :-)
Linux is great for many things. It also lacks many things that a lot
of people want. KDE 2 is really a huge leap forward in terms of
usability for the average user. I still wouldn't give my mom a Linux
box as a desktop machine, but I suspect that I won't be able to say
that in a couple of years.
Here are some other things that I use Linux for:
1) CD-ripping and MP3 encoding. In my opinion, there is no better
free option than grip/cdparanoia/lame under Linux, either in Linux
or Windows. It's a snap with these tools.
2) CD-burning. It's a little more complicated under Linux, but it
works a _lot_ better than Win98.
3) Backups. I can backup my entire Windows partition on 4 CD-ROMs
under Linux with a perl script I wrote. I'd have to pay quite a
bit to get a Windows tool that does the same and is as easy to
use.
4) Remote X-client connecting to work. It seems that everyone here
that uses a Windows box to connect to work always has some problem.
It always works for me under Linux.
5) Java/C/perl/python development. All the free programming tools I
could ever need are in the standard Linux distro, for free!
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:05:59 +0000
kiwiunixman wrote:
> The big question is why does Windows have a registry? Look as BeOS for
> example, no extensions or registry, everything recognised via mimetyping.
The registry was invented partly to get rid of INI files. These were
cluttering up the system, eating vast amounts of disk space, despite them
being small (FAT16 has a large cluster size for bigger disks). Also the
registry gives a hierarchical storage of data of configuration information
for applications.
Of course, put all configuration in one place has some advantages and
disadvantages. The advantage - you can back it up - the disadvantage, if a
part of it goes, the whole system goes... oops!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 17:11:16 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: hey intel warns! I'd better hold off on buying a PC!
Intel has warned! I'd better hold off on buying a PC. More discounting
is
sure to follow!
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 22:11:59 GMT
> Well, It certanly looks like we have come a long way in the last couple
> of years. The list of lacks has been cut down dramaticaly!
So I hope it will be in the next two :-)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 00:00:08 +0200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >
> > "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:sPDX5.64153$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 02:54:55 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >Grandpappy could care less about the command line. From the GUI, he
can
> > do
> > > >all his work, he can copy, rename, print, delete, backup and restore
> > files,
> > > >he can browse the web, he can get e-mail and news, he can do every
single
> > > >task he actually needs to do. So what benefit is there in learning
the
> > > >command line for him?
> > >
> > >
> > > What are you trying to prove with this argument?
> >
> > The original quote I was responding to: "But even if you're a new user,
it's
> > still worth taking the time to learn how to use the command line."
> >
> > Now, what benefit does the command line offer Grandpappy, as a new user?
>
>
> Which is easier:
>
> a) opening 50 documents, one at a time, trying to find which one
> references a specific peculiar topic...
>
> or
>
> B) grep _keyword_ [*.document_files]
>
C> <win key>+F > *.document_files > TAB > Keyword > ENTER
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 00:06:13 +0200
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90ore4$26ma$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You should have read the whole thread, I'll repeat:
Assuming his problem (why won't he use kill -f?), then after you determained
that trying to do all those checks is useless, you can setup a script to
reboot every week or so, should take you less than 5 minutes to do so, even
if you are totally clueless.
setup a script to restart services every week or so, without restarting the
box itself, as this might be the problem.
check when the services die, and then reboot, (you can automate this).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Original Post
> I've been involved with the set up of more than 200 NT Servers, about 5
2000
> Servers, and 5 Linux Servers. Most of the NT Servers were at a bank (I
was
> on their Y2K project).
>
> Not 1 of the NT Servers was up more than 6 weeks. Actually, that's not
> true, one SQL Server remained up for 3 months but had to be moved. So I
> guess kudos for whomever set up that machine. Some of the rest of the
> machines had scheduled reboots anywhere from every night to every couple
of
> weeks. This was to prevent them crashing in the middle of the day. Most
of
> the time, they didn't crash, though, it's just that a service died and
> couldn't be restarted. I shook with fear everytime I clicked 'Stop' in
the
> Services Control Panel.
>
> The 2000 Servers fared better, though, I think that on has been up for
about
> 4 months. I'm not really sure, I'm not with that company anymore. But
most
> of them have had to be rebooted for the same 'dead service' reason. It
may
> be stable if you NEVER EVER EVER TOUCH IT, but that just doesn' t happen
in
> the real world.
>
> The Linux Servers are another matter entirely. Never has one of them
> crashed. The 1st server I set up has been up for 192 days now. And I've
> upgraded the database server, the web server, the ssh server, the dns
> server, and the mail server. Nary a reboot. The only times the other's
> have been down is to be moved, or someone uplugged them, or a hardware
> failure.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Manpower with a machine crashing is a HELL of a lot longer than 5 seconds,
> not sure what random hole you pulled that number from. Someone has to
> investigate the problem with the machine, take preventive action, check
> error logs, make reports, not to mention actually do the reboot, which
from
> a standing start is much more than 5 seconds. Besides, if you have
Windows
> boxes that boot in less than 5 seconds, I'm going to raise the bullshit
> flag.
>
> As for redundency, yes, there is some redundency for some of the more
> critical systems. But of course, all of the really critical systems are
on
> a mainframe or on Unix boxes. Most machines have no redundency, print
> servers, web servers, etc.
>
> And as mentioned before, so that I don't have to repeat it to you, these
> machines were initally set up by consultants from Microsoft. So if there
> are problems, they are Microsoft's fault primarily.
>
> In all fairness, though, and in the interest of full disclosure, I did
> mention that many machines were scheduled for nightly or weekly reboots so
> that they never even had a chance to get to 6 weeks. But that does only
> account for about half of the machines. Also, for full disclosure, the
> machines at the bank did have to coexist with NetWare and NDS, so there
can
> be stability problems there as well. But machines I've worked with
> elsewhere have not fared much better.
>
> I have never seen any evidence that a production Windows box (one that
does
> actual work) has been up for more than 100 days. I've heard lots of
claims,
> but never has anyone "put their money where their mouth is". If you know
of
> such evidence, I'd love to see it.
>
> Many times my boxes went down not because of a crash but because I need to
> change a configuration, install an application, or other maintenance
issues.
> This has been mitigated in W2K, but not wholly.
>
> Adam Ruth
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:glPX5.6691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [snips]
> >
> > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:90oc6t$1rp9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "That isn't good".
> > >
> > > Allow me to illustrate:
> > >
> > > 200 servers, max 6 weeks up time = average of 4.76 servers crashing
> daily
> > > (under the best conditions). Shall we examine the cost in manpower to
> > work
> > > with those servers? The cost in lost productivity?
> >
> > Well, I don't know where you get the 6 weeks figure from, nor does it
> state
> > _why_ the machines are going down after 6 weeks. Hardware failures? Or
> do
> > they simply need to be rebooted? If the latter, then the total manpower
> > necessary to cope with the situation(assuming Win2K) is about 5 seconds
> per
> > box[1], or less than a minute per day - hardly a big issue on that
score.
> > Further, when running 200 servers, its very likely there's some
redundancy
> > happening, so you're probably not losing any productivity, either. All
in
> > all, pretty much a non-issue... except that your machines should _not_
be
> > going down that often; ours don't.
> >
> >
> > [1] The time it takes to signal the box to restart. No need to log on
> after
> > the restart, ya know.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:14:38 +0000
kiwiunixman wrote:
> 2. Windows cannot, and will not work for weeks with out a reboot, maybe
> two to three days I could believe, be anything longer than that, I can't
> see happening.
That explains our Windows 98 server that runs for months at a time. We
never switch it off or reboot it.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 22:12:52 GMT
Thanks for your large and reasoned answer.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:17:40 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> The phrase a couple purposes is probably the difference.
> In the insurance industry the NT systems we have are running
> over 10,000 threads each. And they will sucessfully run
> for a solid 24 hours with no problems. But if you go
> beyond this, they will crater.
>
> If you take a distribution of Debian Stable you can
> run the same test with 10,000 threads and your system
> will NEVER GO DOWN. It just NEVER DIES.
Then why aren't you doing that Charlie? Last I heard your company is still
using Windows NT. If you know Windows is such a mess, why are you still
using it? Why are you still there?
> There are only three things which make for bad uptime
> on a linux box. Your will, the power companies will,
> and GOD!
And duff software.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 22:17:04 GMT
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:14:38 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>kiwiunixman wrote:
>
>> 2. Windows cannot, and will not work for weeks with out a reboot, maybe
>> two to three days I could believe, be anything longer than that, I can't
>> see happening.
>
>That explains our Windows 98 server that runs for months at a time. We
>never switch it off or reboot it.
BFD.
--
Use remove wakawaka and invalid to e-mail me. You can thank spammers for this
inconvenience.
I didn't do it! Nobody saw anything! You can't prove anything! -- bart
------------------------------
From: Stephen King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Several items (Re: Nothing to say but, WOW)
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 22:17:40 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> >
> > So, what was it we needed Microsoft for? To get rich from the production
> > of lame, bloated, overpriced, closed, anticompetitive code?
>
> No.. we need Microsoft so that drooling idiots who can do no
> more than point & click can call themselves "administrators"
I thought they had all become MCSE's
IMHO a Systems Engineer can debug an OS kernel. Does Microsoft teach
that?
--
Porsche Boxster 88,295,395 Club-Z points away
Stephen J King :: RR2 Utopia Canada L0M 1T0
--
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:21:12 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> You know what sort of 'maintenance' is needed for a Unix or Linux system?
>
> Changing the backup tape.
Still working on the old dinosaurs, huh?
Of course if you stick to just UNIX or Linux then you're probably right.
But if you want to use a desktop like KDE2, then expect bugs: X,
Linux et al can freeze up on you.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 00:15:14 +0200
"WorLord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Taken from the obscure and questionable writings of "scatterman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
>
> >All I can relate is my personal experiences, But if you can keep windows
up
> >for that long then your a wizard.
>
> Oh, it *can* be done.
>
> More often then not, though, it never *is* done right out of the box,
> and, in order to have a quasi-stable machine, you first have to start
> with buying the appropriate hardware. There are some pieces of
> hardware that are just *not* stable with Win9x, no matter how you
> tweak it, what drivers you use, or how many spells you cast.
>
> (USB is a particularly screwed spot, now that I think about it.
> Iomega Zip Drives seem to work fine on USB in Win9x, but I've seen an
> otherwise solid-as-a-rock system go down like a cheap hooker for no
> apparent reason once a printer or USB handspring cradle is used.
> Moving each device to a serial or parallel port, without even messing
> with the drivers, restores stability all 'round.)
>
> One also has to make sure no other programs, daemons, or TSR's are
> running - and Win9x seems to hide tons of these in the registry.
msconfig.exe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
