Linux-Advocacy Digest #759, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Chad C. Mulligan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:28:32 GMT
Russ Lyttle writes:
> For those not inclined to read below I will recap. Tholen claims use of
> power cords is intuitive.
Correct; people do not generally need to consult a manual to know what
to do with a power cord. Do you disagree?
> I give several counter examples about power cords behaving in ways
> people do not expect, and of people doing strange things with power
> cords.
None of your so-called "counter examples" prove that people generally do
not know what to do with a power cord without reading a manual. For those
inclined to not believe me, read below.
> Tholen counters that that wasn't fair as the users couldn't have known
> about that or couldn't see inside the TV set or some such.
Where did I allegedly say anything about "fair", Russ? I simply stated
that people generally know what to do with a power cord without consulting
a manual. What might happen inside a set is quite irrelevant to that issue.
Whether the circuit is broken by a fuse or an internal socket-plug interface
is also irrelevant. The issue is whether people generally know what to do
with a power cord without consulting a manual.
> This attitude is one think I especially dislike about MS software.
> Everything is proclaimed to be "intuitive", when in fact, nothing in
> this universe is "intuitive", not even the simple power cord.
Really? You need a manual to know what to do with a power cord on some
new appliance??? Why do you think the word "intuitive" exists?
> If you don't test your product agains a naif user, expect it to fail in
> the field, no matter how "intuitive" you thought it was.
Looks like you're one of those people who thinks "intuitive" is an
absolute. If it doesn't work for everyone, then it can't be intuitive.
Sorry, but the word isn't defined that way.
> Murphy originally said, "If someone can f**k it up, they will." It lost
> meaning in the translation.
Doesn't render everything non-intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you citing evidence that destroys your argument, Aaron?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Familiarity (or experience, to use my word for it) does not have
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be universal before something can be declared "intuitive".
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a good rule of thumb: if you need to consult the manual,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone has to "consult the manual" (or a friend, or the on-line
>>>>>>>>>>> help) at some point early in their learning process.
>>>>>>>>>> I know some first-time computer users that did not need to consult
>>>>>>>>>> the manual or a friend to know what to do with the power cord, for
>>>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>> I have earned a lot of money plugging in power cords for people.
>>>>>>>> Congratulations. I know people who replace water heaters, and they
>>>>>>>> also plug in the power cord for customers while installing the
>>>>>>>> replacement appliance.
>>>>>>>>> The first electronics job I had was making calls to fix TV sets.
>>>>>>>> Not to install them? Televisions that hadn't yet been used don't
>>>>>>>> usually require fixing.
>>>>>>> Both. The most common was after the set was at home. Most people, by
>>>>>>> that time, were trying to install the sets themselves.
>>>>>> And you're claiming that they didn't know enough to plug it in? Do
>>>>>> these people use a toaster? A lamp? A microwave oven?
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>> About half the time the problem was the power cord wasn't plugged in.
>>>>>>>> But was it because they didn't know that it had to be plugged in, or
>>>>>>>> had it accidently become unplugged without them knowing it? There's
>>>>>>>> a big difference there. I've seen it happen to people many times.
>>>>>>> They didn't know all the subtilities of operating a power cord.
>>>>>> What "subtleties"?
>>>>>>> Plug it in all the way.
>>>>>> What's subtle about that?
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>> Unplug it before moving the set.
>>>>>> Are you saying that the cord was damaged from strain?
>>>>> No, I'm saying that your description of how to use a power cord is
>>>>> missing sum subtilities. Such as : a power cord has *two* ends.
>>>> What has that got to do with unplugging before moving the set?
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>> On a toster one end is usually fixed to the toster.
>>>> On many televisions, one end is usually fixed to the television.
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>> On TV sets and computers neither end is fixed.
>>>> Not always. My television does not have a detachable power cord.
>>> It does if the set is in the US.
>> The set is in the US, and the power cord cannot be removed from the
>> rear of the unit.
> Bet if you open the box the power cord will stay with the case and
> unplug from the chassis.
Irrelevant, given that the case you brought up was moving the set,
not taking it apart.
> Or did you think they had 6 feet of power cord
> curled up inside the case?
Also irrelevant to the case of moving the set that you brought up.
>>> If you open the case the power cord comes unplugged from the set.
>> When people move a set around, they don't usually open the case
>> first. You were talking about moving a set around, not opening
>> a case. Do try to be consistent.
> No but they yank on the power cord.
Not necessarily. Some of us were taught to grasp the plug, not yank
on the cord.
> On older sets it was pretty obvious.
That they yanked on the power cord?
> I can understand people not grasping that fact on the newer sets.
The fact that they yanked on the power cord?
>>> You have to use a "cheater" cord to power
>>> up the set once it has been opened.
>> But you weren't talking about opening a set. You were talking about
>> moving a set around, which doesn't require that it be opened up.
> Sure. Move the set. Forget to unplug it first or step on the cord. The
> resulting strain unplugs the cord at the set end.
Isn't that what I first asked about?
RL] Unplug it before moving the set.
DT] Are you saying that the cord was damaged from strain?
> Intuitive, right?
Irrelevant, right?
>>> Sometimes the set end comes loose,
>>> especially if someone doesn't unplug before moving the set.
>> If you're talking about some internal connection that can't be seen
>> by the user, then that doesn't serve as an argument against my claim
>> that the power cord is intuitive.
> Its a power cord. It should be intuitive.
And it is. They plug the appliance in and expect it to be powered.
You claimed that it's not intuitive, and tried to prove it by pointing
to service calls that you made, but you have yet to describe a single
case involving someone who didn't know enough to plug it in. Instead
you've talked about an internal connection coming undone, bent prongs,
and such, none of which illustrates a case in which the user didn't
know enough to plug the cord into a wall outlet without consulting a
manual.
>>> It can often be reinserted by simply pushing on the back of the set
>>> near the power cord.
>> Does that somehow make the power cord not intuitive?
> Was it intuitive that you should push on the back of the set to
> reconnect the power cord?
I wasn't talking about that end of the cord. What is intuitive is the
end that people plug into a wall socket.
>>>>> You need to make sure *both* ends are plugged in.
>>>> Same situation applies. Usually people know how to do that, but were
>>>> simply unaware that one end had come unplugged.
>> Note: no response. It's very easy to be unaware of an internal
>> connection coming loose.
> Lets see. You say a power cord is intuitive.
Correct; people do not generally need to consult a manual to know what
to do with a power cord. Do you disagree?
> I point out some non intuitive things about power cords.
You point out some thing that has nothing to do with the end that
people generally know goes into a wall socket (strain that causes an
internal connection to become lost, which says nothing about the
user's intuition regarding what to do with the other end of the power
cord).
> You say they weren't intuitive because the user didn't know about them.
On the contrary, I said "It's very easy to be unaware of an internal
connection coming loose." That has nothing to do with knowing what
to do with the other end of the cord.
> My Websters defines intuitive as "capable of being know by intuition.
> And it defines intuition as "direct perception of fact independent of
> any reasoning process".
And experience with other electrical appliances means that people
generally do not need to apply any reasoning process to know what to
do with the power cord of a new appliance.
> But you argue that my examples of non intuitive facts about power cords
> are invalid because they are not intuitive.
On the contrary, I said "It's very easy to be unaware of an internal
connection coming loose." That has nothing to do with knowing what
to do with the other end of the cord.
>>>>> Also power cords are polarized. Try to plug them in the wrong way and
>>>>> they don't fit properly.
>>>> The polarized plugs that I've used won't fit at all if you try to do
>>>> it the wrong way. My television has a three-prong plug, however. Only
>>>> goes one way.
>>> I'll send you the next three pronged plug I get that has had the third
>>> prong bent or broken by the user. I kept one for years that someone had
>>> managed to plug the third prong into the hot side of the socket. They
>>> didn't understand why their GFI tripped every time they turned on the
>>> set.
>> Was it bent or broken intentionally so that the set could be plugged
>> into a outlet that hadn't been upgraded with three-prong outlets? I
>> can't think of any other reason why someone would do that.
> It was intuitive.
"nothing in this universe is 'intuitive'"
--Russ Lyttle
Do make up your mind.
> You only need two prongs to get electricity, so if you break off the
> third prong, you will use less electricity and your bill will be
> cheaper.
Which is the unneeded third prong?
>>> The classic case for this is an event in Idaho where a technician
>>> plugged a multi-pronged cord in backwards and killed himself when the
>>> research reactor he was working on "pulsed". No one living could
>>> understand why he went to the trouble to bend those pins to make it fit.
>> Does that make the power cord non-intuitive?
> It is a good example of how relying on things being "intuitive" is
> dangerous.
Oh really? Was it intuitive to intentionally modify the prongs to
permit plugging the cord in backward?
>>>>>>> If the light doesn't come on check the power cord. That sort of thing.
>>>>>> What's subtle about that?
>>>>> People don't do it. For computers it is worse. The light on the computer
>>>>> can come on, but not the monitor, or vice versa.
>>>> Same situation applies. Usually people know how to do that, but were
>>>> simply unaware that one of the two was unplugged.
>>> If the power cord was that intuitive, they would have checked, now
>>> wouldn't they?
>> Did they succeed in plugging both in, in the first place? When something
>> stops working that was previously working, they tend to think of what
>> might have changed. If there is no reason for the power cord to have
>> become unplugged, then it makes sense to consider the possibility that
>> there is a problem with the unit itself and not the power cord.
Note: no response.
>>> They wouldn't bend prongs to get it plugged in. They
>>> would unplug it before trying to work on the set. In this industry, you
>>> cannot assume that anything is intuitive for a sufficient percentage of
>>> your customer base.
>> And just what percentage of the people do you need to plug power cords
>> in for them?
Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>> I learned very quickly not to just plug in the cord and send a bill
>>>>>>>>> for $50. I would futz around a while, take the back off, look intent.
>>>>>>>>> Then put the back on and plug it in.
>>>>>>>> You're admitting to what some people would consider a "dishonest"
>>>>>>>> service call?
>>>>>>> No. They got charged the same, the fee for one hour service call.
>>>>>> Even if it took one minute?
>>>>> Yes. The minimum charge is one hour. Same as auto repair shops and other
>>>>> such services.
>>>> Why? Travel time for an on-site visit can be justified, but why a
>>>> minimum? Would you like to pay for an hour long-distance telephone
>>>> call, even if it lasted only a minute?
>>> Never had your own service business have you? Overhead, book keeping,
>>> accounting, taxes, etc. all mean that a charge less than a minimum is a
>>> loss. The service charge for one hour is that minimum in this case.
>> It takes you an hour to do all the book keeping, accounting, and so on
>> for a one-minute service call?
Note: no response.
>>>>>>> I just decided not to upset them by pointing out that they didn't know
>>>>>>> how to operate a power cord.
>>>>>> Which would have been rather presumptuous of you.
>>>>>>>>> When PCs came out, there were more power cords not to be plugged in
>>>>>>>>> and thus more business.
>>>>>>>> Some people prefer to have experts install new gizmos for them.
>>>>>>>> Doesn't mean that they don't have the intuition to plug it in for
>>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>> But that doesn't mean the power cord is all that "intutive" either.
>>>>>> Doesn't mean it isn't "intutive" [sic] either.
>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP<<
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:30:50 GMT
Russ Lyttle writes:
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> Russ Lyttle wrote:
>>> Steve Mading wrote:
>>>> I wrote:
>>>>> Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
>>>>> enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
>>>>> determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
>>>>> record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
>>>>> intuitive.
>>>> Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
>>>> unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
>>>> off would, you know, actually turn it off.
>>> California is having power problems right now because of this problem.
>>> It applies not only to VCRs but to TV sets, computers, and many other
>>> new pieces of electronic equipment. The HDTV I worked on pulled over 10
>>> amps when the power switch was in the "off" position.
>> 10 AMPS!
>>
>> At 120 volts RMS, Thats 1200 WATTS!
> Yep. Your A/C has to work over time to cool down the room. The 3
> projection tubes were kept hot to extend their life, plus the computer
> doing the convergence and alignment had to be kept running. Moving the
> set or a long power outage resulted in a technician having to make a
> service call. Turning the set on essentially unblanked the video. So
> "on" power was only about 12-13 amps. It would have problems on 15 amp
> circuits, but be OK on 20 amp circuits. Unfortunately, most modern
> electrical equipment (wall sockets, for example) are only rated for 15
> amps even if the circuit breaker is 20 amps. That is acceptable under
> NFPA code.
Doesn't sound like the sort of equipment you're going to find in the
average household.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:33:35 GMT
Russ Lyttle writes:
>>> Steve Mading wrote:
>>>> I wrote:
>>>>> Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
>>>>> enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
>>>>> determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
>>>>> record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
>>>>> intuitive.
>>>> Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
>>>> unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
>>>> off would, you know, actually turn it off.
>>> California is having power problems right now because of this problem.
>>> It applies not only to VCRs but to TV sets, computers, and many other
>>> new pieces of electronic equipment. The HDTV I worked on pulled over 10
>>> amps when the power switch was in the "off" position.
>> What was it doing? And was it designed to that? And is that 10 amps
>> from a 120 VAC outlet? What in an HDTV could possibly need 1200 watts
>> when off?
> The projection tubes. Ever notice that light bulbs frequently burn out
> when you turn them on, but seldom burn out after they have been on for a
> while? This was a 72" diagonal projection set. You keep the tubes hot so
> they don't burn out so fast. The initial power surge when turning on a
> cold tube causes most of the failures. I had a Curtis-Mathis color set
> in the 60s that lasted until the early 80s without a tube replacement
> because it kept the filaments at 1/2 power when the set was off.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that the set was of the HDTV
variety. Why didn't you say "The 72-inch projection TV set" instead
of the "The HDTV I worked on"? Being of the HDTV variety is quite
irrelevant.
------------------------------
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 08:34:10 GMT
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > "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?
>
> Domino exists on many server platforms including linux. Domino is
> integrating sendmail into their next release to improve its scalability
> and reliability. SMTP is the name of the protocol that all of these
> servers use. MS mail is not an enterprise mail server. Haven't tried
> groupwise. Guess that leaves exchange.
>
Because an application exists on another platform doesn't eliminate it's
usefulness on WindowsNT/2000.
> >
> > >
> > > 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
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
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 08:34:37 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90sog5$1h2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <VGjY5.10172$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:90sdg9$qb9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ah, the very old line, I don't know how they did it, so it can't be
> > > done. Sorry, Chad, Just because you or anyone outside of Netcraft
> does
> > > not know how netcraft get's the numbers does NOT prove Nectraft does
> not
> > > know how to do it.
> > >
> > > Are you claiming that Netcraft is making up the numbers?
> > >
> >
> > Prove they aren't.....
>
>
> Yeah, right! next you'll claim that the black Netcraft has launched a
> fleet of black helecopters to take over the Microsoft Headquarters!
>
> This one you need to prove, PROVE THAT NETCRAFT DOES NOT KNOW A WAY TO
> GET THE NUMBERS.
>
Don't need to, you already have.
>
> >
> > >
> > > In article <ZOhY5.5053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "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.
> > > >
> > > > Top 50 of whay? Netcraft's admittedly unscientific method of
> > > > determining uptime?
> > > >
> > > > Please, explain to us how you can accurately determine the uptime
> > > > of a Windows machine (or any, for that matter) remotely without
> > > > any permissions on that box without constantly pinging it?
> > > >
> > > > Can't? Right, because there is no way. Netcraft must be magic,
> then.
> > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure they are out there. Unfortunately, I've never had an
> > > environment
> > > > that didn't move once a year or so. The past couple companies I've
> had
> > > > have physically moved from one location to another once or twice.
> > > >
> > > > The longest stretch of uptime I've had on NT was 312 days or so.
> But
> > > > the previous stretch was 280 or so days. I had to shut the box
> down
> > > and
> > > > move it to the our new address then get it back up which it stayed
> up
> > > > for 312 days.
> > > >
> > > > This machine served the domain, printing, file sharing, internet,
> > > Exchange
> > > > messaging, and several other tasks for about 50-70 users and about
> 10
> > > > dial-in users and 2 VPN users. It had a heavy load for the
> hardware it
> > > > was running on.
> > > >
> > > > > > 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 ...
> > > >
> > > > Win9x mainly, which is irrelevant. Perhaps there are the clueless
> > > > small businesses running NT or 2K as Administrator all the time
> > > without
> > > > virus software, but any competent person doesn't run as
> Administrator
> > > > (or root in Unix) and therefore is not subject to these "viruses".
> > > I've
> > > > had many of them sent to me and none had any affect.
> > > >
> > > > > Scalability - I don't think so. Will ANY variant of Windows run
> on a
> > > 256
> > > > > processor machine?
> > > >
> > > > It's irrelevant. Windows can accomplish in less processors what
> other
> > > > OSes accomplish with larger amounts of processors. Windows scales
> out
> > > > which lends to better managability, better availability (don't
> keep
> > > your
> > > > eggs in one basket), and better over-all scalability. Reference
> > > www.tpc.org.
> > > >
> > > > -Chad
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> >
> >
>
>
> 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 08:35:58 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90soj5$1pt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <ZOhY5.5053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "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.
> >
> > Top 50 of whay? Netcraft's admittedly unscientific method of
> > determining uptime?
> >
> > Please, explain to us how you can accurately determine the uptime
> > of a Windows machine (or any, for that matter) remotely without
> > any permissions on that box without constantly pinging it?
> >
> > Can't? Right, because there is no way. Netcraft must be magic, then.
>
> Prove this last satement. Prove that there is no way to get the numbers.
> IF you clan not prove it, you can not make this claim.
>
LOL, you never prove anything Matt, yet you have the audacity to make this
statement, good drugs eh?
>
>
>
<trimmed>
> >
> >
>
>
> 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 08:37:17 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90sopp$1qp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <1BiY5.9817$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "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.
> >
>
> Prove that they got unreliable information from the top 50!
>
The onus is on you to prove the reliability of the figures you present as
facts.
<trimmed>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:40:16 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:56:04 GMT,
> Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Linux was used on the Titanic but the render farm had to be augmented by
> >utilizing NT boxes after they had finished doing the design work. The
Linux
> >render farm, as designed wasn't up to the task. If you are looking for
> >referrences to what I say, check out the TITANIC thread in this group and
> >COLA from about 20 months ago.
> >
>
> Just so the crowd doesn't think your full of shit,
> give us just one link to a web site which proves this.
>
> Just one.
>
Try deja.com the whole thread is there in all it's glory. BTW, I cannot
remember the name of the article that was quoted in that thread by Matt and
Stephen Edwards. I'm sure a search on deja will return the info you need.
>
> >
> >Really funny, the company I work for at this time does support for
Disney,
> >Universal and are negotiating with Paramount and guess what not a Linux
box
> >to be found the VP at Universal says they can't use Linux because their
> >internal TCO study found Linux too high compared to Windows NT.
> >
>
>
> And what company would that be?
>
Can't say.
> Thanks for bringing up Disney. They made TRON
> with a non-windows based computer also.
>
Amiga IIRC.
> I almost forgot that.
>
> As far as your comment about Disney not using Linux
> or FreeBSD to do animation work, your fucked.
>
They don't
> Nobody does any sort of animation work on Windows
> anywhere.
>
> You couldn't point us to one web site which does.
>
Who cares about web sites, I'm talking about movies.
> Charlie
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
