Linux-Advocacy Digest #742, Volume #30 Fri, 8 Dec 00 12:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: windoze is awful (Kenny Pearce)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Uptimes (Stephen King)
Re: Uptimes (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
need to open 100 windows ("Dan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenny Pearce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: windoze is awful
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:38:08 -0800
Yes, like you said when running a dirty app linux will just close it without
warning. MacOS does essentially the same thing from time to time but, more
often, reboots your system with very little warning and no choice. MacOS is the
only thing I've ever seen which is worse than windows.
Running linux, all you hafta do is go to a virtual teminal (ctrl + alt + F
whatever on my box), log in as root, use ps aux, then kill -TERM whatever app
you want. On my windows machine (which I admit is, for whatever reason worse
than most) more often than not, the close program dialog won't show after a
three-finger salute. And, when an app is bad enough that Linux would just kill
it without warning, which, for the record, I have never had happen (and as we
speak I'm using Netscape for Linux which is a pretty crappy piece of software,
I've had some problems with it, but never that), Windows will just reboot. My
windows machine (which, again, is worse than most) has just restarted without
even giving me any message. When windows locks up, usually I three-finger
salute, nothing happens, try it again the Da*n thing goes BSOD on me and
there's nothing I can do.
I prefer greater control of my enviroment to user-friendliness any day. I
realize that X is not the best, but the thing I like best about linux is the
philosophy: "No complaining. If you don't like it, change it!". I hate windows
and MacOS because they think they know what I want better than I do. A prime
example of this in Microsoft software is the MS Office Assistant. Once I was
writing a bibliography for a school assignment and was citing a web-site as a
source. The stupid office assistant, as soon as I typed the URL in, asked me if
I would like help writing my Web-Site! this is typical Microsoft ingenuity.
People have criticized me in the past for complaining about the problems of
Windows and not being able to do anything about them. I don't complain about
any problems Linux may have (and I personally haven't seen Linux have any
problems) because, if I posessed the neccesary degree of intellegence and
expertise (I don't) then I could fix it myself. That's the difference. When
there is a problem with Windows you can't fix it. It's there and it's going to
stay there. Microsoft usually isn't all that interested in fixing it.
I prefer the linux philosophy any day. Also, every problem I've found
hasn't been with Linux itself. There've been quite a few problems with
Netscape. There have been a few problems with X (and may I remind you that,
unlike Windows, there are very few tasks on Linux that cannot be done without a
GUI interface), but X isn't Linux. X is a GUI written by a third party to run
on Unix type systems.If X is unstable (it's still far more stable than Windows
in my personal experience), then don't use it. SVGAlib can probably do alot of
that stuff. Or, better yet, *write your own*! You know, you can look at the
source for X, take out some unneccesary features, then recompile and run it,
it'll probably be more reliable. At any rate, don't sit and complain about
things you can change. Sit and complain about windows instead :p
Greg Durnan wrote:
> Oooohhhh.. this is just too big a hook...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenny Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Newsgroups:
> comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp
> .os.ms-windows.advocacy
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: windoze is awful
>
> > 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.
>
> No.. can't say that about linux... if a dirty app is running .. linux just
> PISSES it off the screen... No F***! warning boom.. gone...after an hours
> work.
> At least one feature windows has going for it .. is that when you run with
> the unclean you can always give the 3 finger salute and get rid of the good
> app... so the dirty one can continue.
> Oh.. by the way.. X is an ABORTION. Dirtiest piece of guing bloat around..
> no-one knows what the hell is going on.. K and GNOME bypass the horrid thing
> for much of what they do. The thing leaks like a sieve. Anybody running
> servers with X up knows how it can leak memory to the point where it will
> crash the damn system.
>
> I still use linux though. I guess I only like each of them half and half...
> still looking for something which hasn't appeared yet.
>
> Maybe we could have an honesty survey and ask how long it took people
> reading this to get to the point where they could repeatedly install a
> distro and get linux up with networking and X and sound up in one sitting?
> Now theres an honest question.
>
> Tinkerman
>
> PS MS don't care about high stability. Most people don't. If users find an
> app which screws their system.. they flame it.. and so nobody uses it.
>
> PS2. Its about time the linux team wrote a locked hardware spec for mobo
> makers and gave themselves a real shot at no problem installs. Maybe hijack
> the Xbox? Now that'd be funny.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:41:06 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:34:08 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:52:57 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:13:35 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "B. P. Uecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> > > Tom Wilson wrote in
<msGX5.2276$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >> > >The problem with
> >> >> >> > > Linux (aside from the fact that open source development is a
> >black
> >> >> >> > > hole) is that it tries to be everything to everyone and
masters
> >> >> >> > > nothing. It is basically acceptable as a server platform but
> >> >beyond
> >> >> >> > > its circle of devotees (and dolts who who can do no better
than
> >> >parrot
> >> >> >> > > slashdot) it has no mindshare. Linux on the desktop will
never
> >> >happen
> >> >> >> > > and on the server end it is mainly a toy for easily
distracted
> >> >geeks
> >> >> >> > > who will eventually find another bandwagon to hop on. I give
it
> >> >> >> > > another couple of years before it joins OS/2 in the trash
heap.
> >> >And
> >> >> >> > > I'm a generous man.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Linux will never be a desktop OS - I agree. Those who think
this
> >are
> >> >a
> >> >> >bit
> >> >> >> > deluded.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why not.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The entire auto industry (WORLDWIDE) uses Solaris/HP/AIX/IRIX as
a
> >> >> >> desktop OS. VERY successfully...and with minimal support staff
> >> >compared
> >> >> >> to LoseDOS. The ENTIRE Unix desktop support team for GM is 20
> >people
> >> >> >> (not counting on-site hardware techs)....for 5,000-10,000 unix
> >seats.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In comparison, the same number of Windows seats takes a couple
> >HUNDRED
> >> >> >> windows ADMINS.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'm not talking the business side of things. I'm talking for home
> >users.
> >> >> >Linux is still very weak in the game department (Performance as
well
> >as
> >> >>
> >> >> So? That's merely a matter of marketshare and has very little
> >> >> to do with the actual attributes of operating systems. Also,
> >> >> WinDOS was at one time in the same place BeOS is now nevermind
> >> >> Linux.
> >> >>
> >> >> >availability). Hardware support has a long way to go yet. This of
> >course
> >> >>
> >> >> Lesse... anandtech linux benchmarks for 3D acceleration
> >> >> with GeForce2, G400, Voodoo5, Ragee 128 and Intel 815.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's not a bad showing actually. While nothing short of the
> >> >> market leader (NT5 included) will 'run everything', that goal
> >> >> really isn't necessary.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're grossly overstating the scope of the problem.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps so... I just call 'em as I see 'em. Time will tell of course
and
> >I
> >>
> >> You don't see shit.
> >
> >I've seen a lot, kid... And I don't see Linux taking Windoze's place on
the
>
> You still don't see shit. All you are doing is spewing a lot of
> hot air. Weak attempts at pretense won't really change that.
What I'm spewing are the very things people have against it. You're not only
going up against MS, you're going up against a lot of misconceptions and
propoganda.
>
> >home desktop anytime soon. Inferior as it is, it isn't going to go away.
>
> It doesn't have to. Linux can still significantly eat into it's
> marketshare, and alternative applications can make headway against
> the those applications that are currently entrenched.
Possible, yes. The GPL still scares the hell out of a lot of developers. Up
until now, proprietary has been the name of the game. Hell, I can remember
when most software products were leased rather than purchased. A company I
worked for paid $10,000 a year for a VMS cost accounting and estimating
package. (The PC revolution changed that, thank god.) Still, a lot of
attitudes are going to have to change. Total control is a hard thing to give
up.
Another thing to consider is the strong-arm tactics MS uses with vendors.
The "Designed for Windows" logo carries a hell of a lot of weight. You think
MS is going to sit idilly by while vendors pump out "Linux Approved"
products? Right now, some ARE jumping on the bandwagon and I hope more do.
But, when Microsoft senses an exodus, they're going to get rough with them.
Especially if they manage not to get broken up after their appeal.
Linux has nothing but uphill to go.
>
> Your claims are faulty regardless of what conclusions you choose to
> draw from them. One does not need to "run everything". Once the
> public at large realizes this, MS marketshare is in deep trouble.
That's the point! The public has been duped to believe that very thing. One
major thing Linux lacks is that kind of effective marketing and PR. It's
going up against a company that turned an inferior CP/M ripoff into a
commercial juggernaut. Circumstances had a lot to do with it, of course -
Nothing beats being in the right place at the right time. I can only imagine
how much better things would have turned out had Digital not declined to do
the IBM-PC OS. At any rate, through that position and brilliant marketing,
they built a dependance that's going to be well nigh impossible to break.
You seem to think I'm either a WinAdvocate or dim....I'm neither. I'm being
realistic. Linux does have a chance - A small one. Linux's reputation has
been established as a difficult to use, hacker OS. Unless that changes, it
isn't going anywhere outside of servers and embedded apps.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:51:47 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:s1uq09.ghe.ln@gd2zzx...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> B. P. Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Linux is a replacement for Netware in your dreams. The problem with
> > Linux (aside from the fact that open source development is a black
> > hole) is that it tries to be everything to everyone and masters
> > nothing. It is basically acceptable as a server platform but beyond
> > its circle of devotees (and dolts who who can do no better than parrot
> > slashdot) it has no mindshare. Linux on the desktop will never happen
> > and on the server end it is mainly a toy for easily distracted geeks
> > who will eventually find another bandwagon to hop on. I give it
> > another couple of years before it joins OS/2 in the trash heap. And
> > I'm a generous man.
>
> http://www.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=CoI3h0b9Dtda2mJq2nJi5
You see a lot of stories like that lately, don't you? <g>
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: Stephen King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:59:17 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> Not true, Netcraft might show that some NT/2000 systems are rebooted
> regularly but IME that is never necessary to maintain stability. In fact
> the only times I've seen instabilities in the OS is during the setup phase.
> Once I've got the drivers all correct the systems only fail when hardware
> fails.
Moot point - there is still no Windows machine in the top 50.
> MSDN members receive software to stress test NT/2000 haven't seen the need
> to run it yet so I'm not sure what it does but I'll let you know.
Does it warp time so that we can see if the system will _really_ stay up
for 3 years nonstop? I doubt it.
The proof is in the pudding. Once a Windows system has been _proven_ to
run under some appreciable load for 3 years nonstop, then I MIGHT
believe it.
> Security is no longer an issue when properly administered, just like UNIX,
> reliability ditto, scalability is actually ahead.
Security is ALWAYS an issue if you want to maintain it. Perhaps NT has
finally caught up, perhaps Win2000 is there, but I still see a thousand
viruses a month plaguing Windows users ...
Scalability - I don't think so. Will ANY variant of Windows run on a 256
processor machine?
--
Porsche Boxster 88,295,395 Club-Z points away
Stephen J King :: RR2 Utopia Canada L0M 1T0
--
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:46:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Ruth wrote:
> >
> > Where can I find some hard numbers about
> > the best and mena uptimes of NT and
> > Linux? I have my own experience, which
> > I'm sure varies from others. I have
> > Netcraft numbers which don't show NT 4
> > and W2K hasn't been around long
> > enough fro some good numbers.
The answer is that you can't. Nearly anyone who has any level of
"preferred partner" agreement has to sign a nondisclosure statement
that prevents them from publishing anything related to Microsoft
without Microsoft's approval. This include real-world availability
numbers and expectations.
> Which means they have yet to prove themselves - acutlly Netcraft shows
> that NT need regular reboots, Win2000 seems to be better, but is still
> playing catch-up to Irix, Solaris, BSD, Linux etc.
There are indicators. For example, many vendors include conditions
for their service level agreements. For example, Windows NT vendors
who promise 99.9% availability also require that the system be rebooted
weekly, that wolfpack style clusters be used, and that only approved
applications (Microsoft) be installed on the machine. UNIX vendors
typically require quarterly or annual reboots and annual maintainance.
Microsoft has asserted that Windows 2000 is 3-5 times more
reliable than Windows NT. If you previously experienced failures
once a week (average over 100 servers), and you upgrade to Windows 2000,
SQL Server 2000, and Back-office 2000, you would experience failures
once a month.
Another problem is that it often take more NT machines to equal one
Linux or UNIX machine. This means that if your NT machine fails once
per month, but you need a web server, an application server, and a
database server, this means that the SYSTEM fails 3 times/month (average).
> > I keep seeing this debate and they always
> > end up with someone saying, "My
> > machine has been up for x months!".
> > Which someone promptly replies, "B.S.!".
> > So has there been any research in this area?
Much of the issues here involve the types of problems that occur.
With Linux and UNIX, the main reason for rebooting is to eliminate
Zombies - processes that were terminated but their children aren't
all dead (usually the signal from the child was missed). The other
problem is corrupted shared memory, which usually occurs when using
middleware such as MQSeries or X.25 drivers that need large buffers.
If two shared memory consumers try to grab all the memory, the system
can hang. It's rare but it happens. Since processes each have their
own memory, it's more common for the process to fail (and get restarted
by a watchdog or inetd) than for the entire server to fail.
The most common cause of server failure on NT is race conditions
> The research, I would think, cannot be done in non-real time. It's not
> like a toilet seat (well, maybe WIndos is) where one can have a machine
> which operates the device at 100x normal rate.
>
> Not only do *nix machines have longer uptimes, they have longer useful
> lifespans. My desktop machine is 7 years old, and will remain useful for
> the development work I do for some time to come, while Windows machines
> have a lifespan of what, 3 years before they must be replaced? The
> Macintosh fares better than this, I bet.
>
> The race is on. Windows has a LOT of catching up to do in many respects,
> most notably security and reliability. (scalability too, I imagine)
>
> --
> Porsche Boxster 88,295,395 Club-Z points away
> Stephen J King :: RR2 Utopia Canada L0M 1T0
> --
>
--
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: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: need to open 100 windows
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 17:03:11 GMT
Hi, trying to open 90-100 internet explorer windows and still be able to
copy and paste to them off notepad. I am using NT4, dell pIII 500 with 384
megs of sdram with eccI even upgraded to a pIII 850 with 512 megs of sdram
with ecc and didn't notice much difference if any.
I can get about 50 windows open (internet explorer) and can still copy and
paste from notepad in to them.After that, I can open a couple more windows,
but can't copy off notepad let alone paste. Any idea's would be appreciated.
Do you think if I used unix os it would help alot?
Thanks.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
