Linux-Advocacy Digest #755, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: windoze is awful ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: What MS-Windows was free (Re: What if Linux wasn't free?) ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes strike back ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: The return of S ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Uptimes strike back ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Uptimes strike back (mlw)
Re: Uptimes ("Otto")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: windoze is awful
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:11:04 GMT
"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > A. The stability of ANY OS depends to a VERY large part on the software
> > that it runs and the interaction of said software with the OS.
> > Windows 2000 Professional IS the most stable flavor of Windows for
DESKTOPS
> > (not only per Microsoft, but per Dataquest, Maximum PC, CNET, et.
alia.).
> > It supports more productivity (and NON-productivity) software than
Windows
> > NT 4 (and almost as much as Windows 9x/ME).
>
> no it doesn't. given a hardware platform with memory traps like ia32
> any OS instability is its own damned fault reguardless of any software
> you try to run on it. low-level hardware drivers may be an exception
> depending upon whether you consider them part of OS or not.
So you are saying that the instability of Windows (any version, but the
thread is about NT/2000) is based on the Intelstyle architecture HARDWARE
underlying the OS?
Then how is it that Linux boxes (not to mention those NT/2000 boxes I see
day-in and day-out) manage to stay up YEARS at a time without rebooting?
Further, Linux hardware drivers are even lower level than NT drivers
(Windows 2000 drivers actually run at a HIGHER (not lower) priviledge level
than those in NT 4.x and earlier). So, Windows 2000 drivers are even more
abstracted from the low-level workings of the OS than even NT.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:07:50 -0600
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> Would anyone but nerds be interested?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> The only reason the big companies are jumping on the Linux bandwagon
> is because they figure if it catches on (doubtful at best)
If you knew what its market share in the server market is, you would have
left out that "if" part.
> they can
> make a buck selling hardware and services.
So is that why Home Depot is installing 90,000 Linuxes? So they can
start selling nails and hinges for it?
> It has such a dismal market share amongst desktop users now, that if
> it were commercial it would be dead by now.
Hehehe. The way to beat a monopoly is to not compete in the same space.
> Point is Linux can't even be given away because no desktop user in his
> right mind (programmers are not in their right minds) would want it.
Funny, but download.com says they just gave away 4.6K copies of RH Linux
and 1.6K copies of Mandrake. In a single week. Kinda doesn't support
your claim that it can't be given away, doesn't it?
> As Redhat and SuSE and Corel move toward commercializing Linux, and
> don't kid yourself that is their ultimate goal, to make money, Linux
> will be even deader than it is now.
Linux could be a *heck* of a lot deader than it is now, and still be
prospering under its own terms.
> Swango
Hi, Steve.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What MS-Windows was free (Re: What if Linux wasn't free?)
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:23:06 -0600
Jeff Silverman wrote:
> Hmmm... just this evening, I landed a lucrative consulting contract converting a
>server to linux
> because the customer wasn't happy with the reliability of Windows
Yeah, whenever I get out of my usual stomping range, I invariably discover that it
isn't just CS
students who despise Windows.
Anyway. I took a Chemistry class this semester, and another student asked on the
class mailing list
why a certain software product didn't work as expected. The professsor (a biochemist)
blandly replied
"because it's a Micro$loth product", and proceded to describe the hoops you have to
jump through to get
the results you want.
Then I went down to the Chemistry department's Media Lab to play with the molecular
modeller. (Nice
SGI system; too bad they wasted it on W2K.) I tried to paste the sample commands from
the browser into
the modeller's input window, and found that it didn't have a menu bar. "How do I
paste into this
window?", I asked the guy who was on duty in the lab. He tried ctrl-This and
ctrl-That, and finally
gave up, saying "I don't know. I usually just do it in Linux -- it's real easy to use
cut-n-paste
under Linux."
Microsoft is in *serious* trouble. I think the X-box is designed to be Bill's escape
pod.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:31:57 GMT
"Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "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.
>
In the top 50 of a majorly flawed data gathering process. Moot indeed.
> > 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.
>
Possibly, it'll probably detect anything that could cause problems.
> 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.
>
Show any system that has been up for three years non stop?
> > 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 ...
>
Properly maintained the systems are as safe as any. Viruses aren't as big a
deal as they may seem. I've seen very few actual virii detected, but then I
ALWAYS run Macaffe. Just like security, with virii an ounce of
prevention.....
> Scalability - I don't think so. Will ANY variant of Windows run on a 256
> processor machine?
>
Why would you want anything to. Single point of failure doesn't scale very
well for me.
> --
> Porsche Boxster 88,295,395 Club-Z points away
> Stephen J King :: RR2 Utopia Canada L0M 1T0
> --
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:35:32 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Service packs are not bad, however, there is a point of contention about
> them that is being missed. Linux (and most other non MS-OS for that
> matter) issue upgrades for improved functionality, better driver
> support, or more features. Rarely is there ever an update that claims
> to fix instability.
Hmm.. seems like every patch in the 2.2 kernel says fix for this bug, or fix
for that bug, usually listing memory leaks, driver bugs, and all sorts of
stuff. Yeah, they included new functionality as well, but then so do the
NT4 service packs. Starting with Win2k, service packs will not add new
functionality, just bug fixes.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:37:45 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "uptime" is very important because one should be in complete control
> when a system goes down. In Windows NT, the typical BSOD means that it
> went does unexpectedly. That is "bad."
So it's your intention to say that everytime a NT system is rebooted, it's
because of a blue screen?
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:34:26 -0600
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> Because your trying to pass off this pathetic collection of free time
> projects, half-finished school final's, and a lot of broken promises as a
> computing platform, THAT'S why.
No, man. He's pushing Linux. The *other* guy was pushing Windows.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The return of S
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:28:49 -0600
Nick Ruisi wrote:
> Hi S!
>
> It looks like you cant even get a simple
>
> 10 PRINT "stupid text"
> 20 GOTO 10
>
> to Work!
Actually, it was supposed to be just
10 PRINT "stupid text"
but he had a bug in it that put it into an infinite loop.
Thank Bog for the front-panel reset button.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:39:25 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Disk fragmentation...hasn't been an issue in the unix
> world for YEARS.... Diskspace is managed by the kernal
> to prevent fragmentation from occuring in the first place.
You can't prevent fragmentation. You can minimize it, but no prevent it.
Especially on a a drive that get's lots of use and is running close to
capacity.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:37:18 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90rdtg$1j0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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 for some good numbers.
>
> The best "real world", "bottom line", source for uptime,
> availability, and TCO indicators is the ISPs themselves.
> They know exactly how much it costs to fund a server, exactly
> how much revenue they can make from each server, and how much
> each server costs.
>
Barring, of course, the eunuch's natural fear of anything different.
> Simply put, you'll pay MUCH MORE to have your content hosted on a
> Windows server than you would to have it hosted on a Linux or FreeBSD
> server.
>
> In many cases, the ISP quotes don't even include the NT client licenses
> and server licenses.
>
> The typical set-up costs for a commercial NT based web site range from
> 1-5 million dollars. The costs for a comparable Linux web site range
> from $1/4-1 million. Recurring costs run about $200/processor/month
> for NT and about $100/processor/month for Linux. Ironically, there is
> actually more PROFIT on Linux or FreeBSD. This is because most Linux
> and FreeBSD servers are "set and forget" situations. Once the
> configuration settings are completed (a 20 minute job) there's almost
> nothing left to do but back-ups and log rotations, which are done
> automatically using cron jobs.
>
Rex, how about posting some actual references to support these figures.
> > Which means they have yet to prove themselves
> > - actually Netcraft shows
> > that NT need regular reboots, Win2000
> > seems to be better, but is still
> > playing catch-up to Irix, Solaris, BSD, Linux etc.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > The research, I would think, cannot be done in non-real time.
> > It's not like a toilet seat (well, maybe Windows is) where one
> > can have a machine which operates the device at 100x normal rate.
>
> Actually, this is very true for uptimes. Availability can often be
> measured by monitoring the number of failures against a known number
> of machines. I have numbers that come from a pool of over 4000 servers,
> and have those further broken down by server type such as Lotus Notes
> servers, File servers, and database servers. Of course, I couldn't
> publish these because the client who maintained them has an NDA with
> Microsoft. About all I can do is push up the numbers and see how they
> jive with the rest of the industry.
>
> Windows NT with SP3 had an availability of about 98.7%,
> Windows NT with SP6+ seems to get about 99.2%, and
> Windows 2000 seems to get about 99.8% in a single-server
> environment.
>
> Both Windows and Linux/FreeBSD have the advantage of being able to
> improve scalability by configuring a "Redundant Array of Inexpensive
> Servers". The Linux Beowulf has many of these features, as does
> Windows 2000 clustering. This is how both companies approach the "five
> nines" problem (99.999% uptime).
>
> > 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?
>
> Actually, most Windows developers need to replace their machines
> every 12 to 18 months. To make matters worse, many applications
> mandate that you be running "Server" rather than "Workstation".
> Windows 2000 professional is great for running Microsoft Office,
> but you can't prototype servers on a Win2K Pro laptop.
>
Need or want to? Can't prototype on Win2K pro. Which server can't you run?
Oracle maybe, but SQL server and IIS are both available on workstation and
can be used to prototype.
> Keep in mind also that Microsoft comes out with new operating
> systems every 2-3 years, but they also come out with upgrades to
> Office, upgrades to Internet Explorer, and upgrades to utilities
> and languages. Any of which can trigger the need for bigger
> and more expensive machines.
>
> Even worse is that the MCSE for Windows NT 4.0 is considered worthless
> in Microsoft's eyes for Windows 2000. Microsoft wants you to know
> Microsoft buzzwords and no others.
>
Actually, in most cases MSCE is worthless period.
> > The Macintosh fares better than this, I bet.
>
> Only slightly.
>
> > 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)
>
> Actually, their biggest problem is still incompatibility.
> Microsoft assumes that because they have 98% of the desktop
> market (possibly only 90% if you figure Linux and Mac), that
> they don't have to adhere to anyone elses standards.
> This creates a really big problem for corporate interests
> who have to plug NT servers into Windows, UNIX, OS/390 and
> VMS.
>
> The industry wanted LDAP, Microsoft came up with Active Directory,
> which uses nonstandard Kerberos, nonstandard LDAP, and nonstandard
> PKI. Furthermore, it's completely incompatibile with NDS, RACF,
> and NIS implementations of LDAP, which means that even the
> sign-on can't be consolidated.
>
> With integrators charging over $2 million to integrate Win2K to
> anything, corporate purchasing managers have developed a whole
> new appreciation for Linux, which was designed by integrators
> for integrators, and includes 98% of the integration tools needed
> to create portals, web sites, or gateways.
>
> > --
> > 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: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:39:17 GMT
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> > This group is your best source for that type of information because
> > the penguin people love to spew that sort of garbage generally at
> > about the same time the Windows users start talking about
> > applications.
>
> Uptime is usually a server consideration. There are 2 mail servers on
> linux, sendmail and postfix, that are head and shoulders above the 1 win
> offering of note in terms of reliability and scalability. There are 2
> http servers, apache and tux, that beat the hell out of the 1 win
> offering of note in terms of reliability.
Which one win offering were you referring to: Domino/Notes, SMTP, Exchange,
Groupwise or the old MS Mail?
>
> Of course, 3 of those 4 applications will run on solaris and bsd, so
> that puts windows a distant 4th in terms of reliability in terms of http
> and smtp server applications. Throw in ircd and inn and now we have 4
> of the major protocols on 3 platforms that windows can't match in terms
> of application reliability.
>
> Typical of a winvocate to think that application = end user
> application.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 22:43:27 -0600
"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >Nobody else is using the term that way.
>
> I disagree. Regardless, it is the most accurate, consistent, and
> practical way to use the term.
>
> >In fact, according to everyone else
> >but you, you can disable TCP/IP in Linux simply by removing the IP from
all
> >cards (including loopback).
>
> That's because they don't understand what "disable TCP/IP" means in the
> context of both your and their use of the term. Nor do you.
Oh, that's right. You're omnipotent. NOBODY else knows what they're
talking about, not even other Linux advocates with years of experience.
> No, the subject is that you have to reboot to remove or add the TCP/IP
> protocol (later you redacted that to disabled the bindings, using the
> fact that nobody was being very careful of the difference early in the
> thread), when you shouldn't have to, since unlike Linux, TCP/IP isn't
> built into the kernel. It steams you pretty bad that this shows Windows
> in such a bad light, since there's no conceivable reason but bad design
> that something that isn't built into the kernel requires rebooting to
> function correctly, not on a modern competitive OS, anyway.
No. I stated you had to reboot to remove TCP/IP either in Windows or Linux.
Others in this thread started saying "Why remove it when you can merely
disable it" and when I said you could disable it the same way under Windows,
you made the claim that you couldn't.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:43:07 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Z5YX5.40518$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:xZEX5.1138$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > > </div>
> > > >
> > > > </body>
> > > >
> > > > </html>
> > > >
> > >
> > > What happens when you embed an excel page?
> >
> > What ever the MIME setting for that type is set to will execute the
file.
> > i.e. if Office is installed the sheet is displayed, if not it will ask
for
> > the application to use.
> >
>
> I meant in terms of what appeared to be the fairly portable XML
> storage format that you were showing off. How does it store
> the linkage? Is it in a form that does not expose MS-internals?
>
It stores it as a link to a binary file the file is downloaded and either
saved or executed.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:36:18 -0600
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> BSME?
The "ME" is "Microsoft Engineer". I can't imagine what the "BS" might stand
for.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:41:11 -0600
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> I could care less about politics, I want my devices that I paid money
> for to work and the fact is they work under at least 2 non related
> operating systems yet Linux pukes on them.
If you actually cared, you'd be sending your complaints to the makers of
those devices, rather than airing them on c.o.l.a.
The funny thing about trolls is that they never seem to realize how
transparent they are.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:48:09 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "uptime" is very important because one should be in complete control
> > when a system goes down. In Windows NT, the typical BSOD means that it
> > went does unexpectedly. That is "bad."
>
> So it's your intention to say that everytime a NT system is rebooted, it's
> because of a blue screen?
No, that the ever present BSOD requires a reboot.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:49:44 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90rdtg$1j0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Snip...
: The typical set-up costs for a commercial NT based web site range from
: 1-5 million dollars. The costs for a comparable Linux web site range
: from $1/4-1 million. Recurring costs run about $200/processor/month
: for NT and about $100/processor/month for Linux. Ironically, there is
: actually more PROFIT on Linux or FreeBSD. This is because most Linux
: and FreeBSD servers are "set and forget" situations. Once the
: configuration settings are completed (a 20 minute job) there's almost
: nothing left to do but back-ups and log rotations, which are done
: automatically using cron jobs.
I'd argue the cost of commercial NT based web site. For less than half a
million dollars, you could have the necessary hardware and software. People
tend to forget that OEM servers come with 10 CALs for each servers.
Depending on the number of servers used, the CALs add upp in hurry. Add to
the equation, that for the web users there is no licensing requirement, then
you can even drop some of the licenses on the OEM machines.
Your recurring cost is way out of whack. Salaries are salaries, regardless
of the OS.
: Actually, this is very true for uptimes. Availability can often be
: measured by monitoring the number of failures against a known number
: of machines. I have numbers that come from a pool of over 4000 servers,
: and have those further broken down by server type such as Lotus Notes
: servers, File servers, and database servers. Of course, I couldn't
: publish these because the client who maintained them has an NDA with
: Microsoft. About all I can do is push up the numbers and see how they
: jive with the rest of the industry.
And I had/have clients who had NDA with SUN, what's your point?
: Windows NT with SP3 had an availability of about 98.7%,
: Windows NT with SP6+ seems to get about 99.2%, and
: Windows 2000 seems to get about 99.8% in a single-server
: environment.
Whatever happened with the NDA?
: Both Windows and Linux/FreeBSD have the advantage of being able to
: improve scalability by configuring a "Redundant Array of Inexpensive
: Servers". The Linux Beowulf has many of these features, as does
: Windows 2000 clustering. This is how both companies approach the "five
: nines" problem (99.999% uptime).
What is scalability has to do with availability (uptime)? Clustering is for
availability, does not improve scalability. Setting up couple of servers in
a cluster doesn't eliminate the apparent limitation of the OS.
: Actually, most Windows developers need to replace their machines
: every 12 to 18 months. To make matters worse, many applications
: mandate that you be running "Server" rather than "Workstation".
: Windows 2000 professional is great for running Microsoft Office,
: but you can't prototype servers on a Win2K Pro laptop.
Really, have you tried using W2K server on a laptop? You'll be surprised....
: Keep in mind also that Microsoft comes out with new operating
: systems every 2-3 years, but they also come out with upgrades to
: Office, upgrades to Internet Explorer, and upgrades to utilities
: and languages. Any of which can trigger the need for bigger
: and more expensive machines.
So do other OS players, whichever doesn't it will stay behind. You're also
wrong about MS software and subsequent upgrades requiring bigger and more
expensive machines. There are numerous third party applications and games,
which I can't run on my two years old PC. The MS apps are running just fine,
even with the upgrade. I'll take MS Office memory footprint any day over
Sun's Star Office memory footprint on the same machine.
: Even worse is that the MCSE for Windows NT 4.0 is considered worthless
: in Microsoft's eyes for Windows 2000. Microsoft wants you to know
: Microsoft buzzwords and no others.
I find that hard to argue with....
: Actually, their biggest problem is still incompatibility.
: Microsoft assumes that because they have 98% of the desktop
: market (possibly only 90% if you figure Linux and Mac), that
: they don't have to adhere to anyone elses standards.
: This creates a really big problem for corporate interests
: who have to plug NT servers into Windows, UNIX, OS/390 and
: VMS.
If you reach 90 - 98% in an area, then you don't have to comply with
anyone's standard. You are the standard, be that any area of the business.
: The industry wanted LDAP, Microsoft came up with Active Directory,
: which uses nonstandard Kerberos, nonstandard LDAP, and nonstandard
: PKI. Furthermore, it's completely incompatibile with NDS, RACF,
: and NIS implementations of LDAP, which means that even the
: sign-on can't be consolidated.
Did the industry want LDAP? If you recall Banyan pioneered the use of LDAP
with its Vines platform. Novell copied it with its NDS product. Neither of
them made much of a dent in the OS directory market. If anything, Microsoft
might be able to be successful with their implementation of the LDAP. As for
the implementation being nonstandard, says who? All of those *nix and
whatever administrators in their small world. Would you kindly describe the
PKI standard for example? I wonder which company's "standard" you'll
describe....
: With integrators charging over $2 million to integrate Win2K to
: anything, corporate purchasing managers have developed a whole
: new appreciation for Linux, which was designed by integrators
: for integrators, and includes 98% of the integration tools needed
: to create portals, web sites, or gateways.
Judging by the growth numbers for Win2K for this year, 230% according to
InfoWorld, Win2K integrators have been busy. Evidently money wasn't matter
much, the corporate purchasing managers must not know/like Linux.
Otto
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
