Linux-Advocacy Digest #760, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Marty)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Uptimes (kiwiunixman)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (kiwiunixman)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (jtnews)
Re: Linux lacks ("Pedro Coto")
Re: Uptimes strike back ("Pedro Coto")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:53:39 GMT
So in hinesight, what you are really, advocating/questioning, is whether
Linux can be considered a UNIX? and in your humble opinion, Linux is not
up to the standard of a commercial UNIX. Correct?
kiwiunixman
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:02:54 +1300, kiwiunixman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> So, by your definition, since I found that SCO Unixware is shit, that
>> must mean that all UNIX's are shit...I don't think so....get back to
>> reality....in the UNIX market there are multiple vendors, Redhat Linux
>
> Nope.
>
> Commercial unix is a totally different animal and I have no problem
> with SCO, Solaris, AIX etc.
>
> Linux however is NOT unix, and it never will be.
>
> Swango
>
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:51:05 GMT
Yeah, right, 2 sources show MS software unstable and all we get from the
winwimps is Claims! NOTHING to back up the claims they make!
Sources that back up the claim that W2K is unstable: 2
Sources that back up the claim that W2K is stable: 0
Oh yeah, We must not forget that the W2K side has Chad's word as proof,
what ever that means.
http://www.uptimes.net/
Linux average uptime: 63 days
windows average uptime: 17 days
The windows averages include 2 NT boxes in the top 100 average uptime
boxes (since there are more Linux boxes in the servey that NT boxes, it
is not fair to make any claims based on the low numbers of NT boxes in
the top 100). Seeing that number of W2K computers comes close to being
1/2 of the total that makes up the windows catagory and some of the
longest uptimes in the windows catagory come from NT, It would be hard
to get the numbers for W2K to be much above 35 days, not far off of the
Netcraft numbers.
But let's do the math.
average uptime = A
Number of computers = N
total uptime = T
A=T/N <- The formula for calculating average uptime. I hope you can
understand this so for Chad
>From the page we can get the following figures:
Total number of computers that make up the Windows catagory = 1327
Average uptime for the computers that make up the windows catagory = 17
days so we know:
17 days=T/1327 days
We solve for T and we get:
22559 days = T (total uptime)
Now, lets assume that all of the windows catagory EXCEPT W2K reported 0
days uptime and all of the 22559 days of uptime for the windows catagory
came from the 611 W2K boxes
So using our formula for averages we get
A=22559 days/611
A=36.9 days average uptime
So, if we attribute ALL of the uptime from the Windows group to the W2K
boxes alone, we get an average uptime for the W2K boxes of 37 days.
Now, with the average uptime for W2K supplemented with ALL the uptime
from the windows group, Lets compare the W2K Uptime average to Linux:
W2K+ 37 days average uptime
Linux 64 days average uptime
Even cheating in favor of W2K, W2K's average uptime does not come close
to that of Linux.
Since I used averages, the relative numbers of Window to Linux is not
important.
In article <IH5Y5.2821$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90pm13$2pvo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
> Not really. You can ask people to post their uptimes.
>
> I recall this one web site with this client you installed that
reported
> uptime to a web site, but it was rather slanted. It was run and used
> primarily by Penguinistas and so they'd have a few token windows boxes
> which they seemed to reboot daily for no reason just to kill the
> Windows numbers and make Linux look better.
>
> Anywhere you go, YMMV and you'll have to take it with a grain of salt.
>
> -Chad
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:58:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >> Lee Sau Dan writes:
>
> >>>>>> The fact that it needs to be learned is what makes something
> >>>>>> not intuitive.
>
> >>>>> So, walking and talking are intuitive, aren't they?
>
> >>>> Did I say that walking and talking do not need to be
> >>>> learned?
>
> >>> I was to tired. :(
> >>>
> >>> So, walking and talking aren't intuitive, are they?
>
> >> Well, I don't know of any infant that just happens to start
> >> speaking some language not heard from the person or persons
> >> rearing it. Do you?
>
> > Do you comprehend baby-talk
>
> I comprehend your "infantile game", Marty.
>
> > or are you of the school of thought that it is gibberish?
>
> Your "infantile game" is pretty useless, Marty.
I see you avoided the question and resorted to invective. Figures.
Nonetheless babies do speak a language of sorts which was not learned by
example. Does a mother cry in front of a baby when she wants something from
it?
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 22:12:33 +1300
<snip>
>> Apple
>> is changing their computing standards to a UNIX based OS and throwing away
>> the hideous 20 year old computing mentality that's keeping Linux in a dark
>
>
> Strange...I remember seing Unix GUI's back in the MS-DOS 3.x days...
Remember, it wasn't too long ago when UNIX and OS/2 were the only ones
that enabled thin clients to log into these servers. As I recall, back
in 1986 (or so) the X-Dumb terminals were developed so that graphical
user interface + centralised processing = lower TCO, compared to Windows
pitiful attempt twelve years later when Microsoft released Windows NT
Terminal Server, UNIX had that functionality 12 years ago!!!!!!!
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:20:28 GMT
I was just being sympathetic to the Wintrols as they require one hundred
thousand dollar hardware, for what Linux can do on around five grand.
kiwiunixman
sfcybear wrote:
> The hardware issue would be the same for any OS that ran on that
> hardware. IF, Linux runs better with fewer crashes on a particular brand
> of Sh*ty hardware than W2K, then Linux would show a better up-time stat
> on that hardware. This is why the Winsupporters attempts to claim every
> glitch in MS OS's as hardware errors does not amount to a single bean,
> much less a hill of them.
>
>
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Even if there was a "uptime keeper" for Linux/Unix and Windows, it
>
> still
>
>> would not give an accurate representation of the OS as much of the OS
>> stability is not only reliant on the fact that the code is as bug free
>> as possible, but also the quality of the hardware used. For example,
>> Windows running on a $100 el-chepo machine will tend to give worse
>> results than Windows on a machine with quality components, and because
>> of this, accurate data is very hard to collate, even under the most
>> strictist test conditions.
>>
>> kiwiunixman
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Adam Ruth
>>
>>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 22:26:03 +1300
Stop drinking before using the computer :)
kiwiunixman
tom wrote:
> The worst thing I have against Linux is that after working in it for
> awhile and definitely after trying to read anything, I come away almost
> cross-eyed because the fonts are just a little off, even after
> importing the windoze fonts and trying them. It's rather ironic that
> I'm trying to read the special pdf edition of Running Linux that comes
> with Mandrake, but I have to read it under Windows because of the font
> thing. It'd be nice if I could read it under Linux and try some of the
> things it covers as I come across them.
>
> Netscape is also horrible, but I don't know if it's Netscape or the
> font thing again. I've added the lines to the startup file that gets
> Netscape to use a little large fonts; I still can't adjust the size.
>
> Does this sound like a hardware issue? (Mandrake 7.1, P266, Leadtek
> Winfast 2300 video card w/8M ram) My card was listed in the setup
> lists, so I assume it's using the correct driver.
>
> Tom
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:35:22 GMT
Yeah, servers with real balls, not these namby-pamby, limp wristed, left
footed, tree hugging Wintel servers! If you want real work done you get
a real server to do the work!
kiwiunixman
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> kiwiunixman wrote:
>
>> WTF would a financial institution use a Wintel server? the
>> banks/financial institutions I know either use the trusty RS/6000 loaded
>> with AIX, a Sun Enterprise Server, or a UNISYS Mainframe.
>
> or an IBM S/390 or AS/400.
>
>
>> kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:48:46 GMT
<snype>
>
> Well I'll tell you...
>
> What's bad about your TRUTH is it's bullshit.
> Linux is a better graphics station. The proof can
> be found in many places but the one I like the best
> is the FACT the movie Titanic was made using Linux.
>
> If you examine Hollywood at large, very little in the
> way of the graphic arts are performed with Windows.
> They mainly use FreeBSD, Linux and Macs but
> Windows is hardly used there. This is also
> true of commercial advertising.
>
> Now your 'OPINION' may be that Windows is the
> way to go but in 'REALITY' it's not the way
> anybody is going.
>
The lord of the rings use big fucking SGI workstations, not these limp wristed,
so-called "workstations" running Windows 2000, Chad Myers craps on about. Hello,
why hasn't NT got a 64 bit journallying file system? BeOS has,
IRIX has, Linux will have soon, why not NT?
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
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 10:01:15 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>> Lee Sau Dan writes:
>>>>>>>> The fact that it needs to be learned is what makes something
>>>>>>>> not intuitive.
>>>>>>> So, walking and talking are intuitive, aren't they?
>>>>>> Did I say that walking and talking do not need to be
>>>>>> learned?
>>>>> I was to tired. :(
>>>>>
>>>>> So, walking and talking aren't intuitive, are they?
>>>> Well, I don't know of any infant that just happens to start
>>>> speaking some language not heard from the person or persons
>>>> rearing it. Do you?
>>> Do you comprehend baby-talk
>> I comprehend your "infantile game", Marty.
>>> or are you of the school of thought that it is gibberish?
>> Your "infantile game" is pretty useless, Marty.
> I see you avoided the question and resorted to invective.
Where is the alleged invective, Marty? I'm simply your own description
for your own behavior.
> Figures.
Figures that you would pontificate about alleged invective.
> Nonetheless babies do speak a language of sorts which was not learned
> by example.
Is that what you consider "walking and talking", Marty?
> Does a mother cry in front of a baby when she wants something from
> it?
Is that what you consider "walking and talking", Marty?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 05:18:30 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> So is that why Home Depot is installing 90,000 Linuxes? So they can
> start selling nails and hinges for it?
I was in Home Depot a few weeks ago, and by chance I saw the cashier
using her terminal and it had an HP-UX login prompt. Do you know what
they're using Linux for at Home Depot?
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 10:31:18 GMT
> How strange. I bought some Linux games from LokiSoft, and they won't
> run under Windows. Who'da thought it? I thought Windows was the
> industry standard.
A matter of portentage, very funny being sarcastic but that won't
hide the truth, we like it or not.
> I can only customize my kernel under Linux. I tried it under Windows,
> but I got an error message when I typed 'make clean; make dep; make
> boot'.
Fine, again sarcasm is good, but the truth is that if you want to play
divX at an acceptable frame rate you do need Windows 98/Me. I am
not happy with it, but I am honest enough to say things are they are.
> I can only render Web pages correctly under Mozilla. IE doesn't support
> the W3C standards.
Lucky man then. Mozilla for me is as unstable as IE on Windows 95.
> Netscape Collabra is my fav. OE is too big a security risk, in my
> opinion.
Each of us can like whichever he wants; anyway, OE is only a security
risk if you have little or no idea about some things. I guess that each
medium
advanced computer user or advocate would be able to manage OE viruses
with no problem at all. Anyway, you are right, OE is perhaps a no necessary
security risk ... a matter of desktop OS market penetration in my opinion,
anyway ... let's wait and see ...
> When I am going to write an article, I choose LyX. It lets me make
> professional looking articles, without getting bogged down in the
> details of formatting. I've never been so preductive a writer in my
> entire life, as I am now.
Well, my magazine tells me to write in Word 97, and then they
format the pages ... so ... I have not really choice, have I ? In any
case, I find LyX more scientific oriented. LaTeX is the best
document language, but ... if you do not know it, perhaps is a
little waste of time to learn it just to write a letter.
> Despite dubious "advances", Windows still doesn't cut it for me.
So tell me how does aviplay or xmps at your machine perform
compared to a Windows player please. Or tell me how Java,
Javascript, VBScript or ActiveX perform under Mozilla. Or
the porcentage of games available for a GNU/Linux desktop
platform. I know that you may have the ones you want, but
as a worl wide desktop OS it suffers from some limitations that
is honest to point even if you (as I do) like GNU and GNU/Linux
philosophy. We do not need to lie as we always point Microsoft
to do, we have a OS that is improving very fast and that we hope
to be ready, but I have no problem admitting that if fails for some
things just now.
> Yeah, me too. It also makes a great desktop system. Everything is so
> much more reliable and predictable, that I get more work done now.
May be for you or for me. But when a ext2 filesystem (and Reiser or the
kind are just now beginning to be widespread) tell a new Linux user
to enter root password to check a filesystem by hand, he gets annoyed.
> Yeah, I was going to list Windows shortcomings, too, but I don't want to
> spend the whole weekend on this message.
I am not a Windows advocate at all. So I will be probably with you
at each Windows bug, fail or wrong behaviour.
> Yeah, you're right. In fact, I'm saying that it's a piece of trash.
Yes, a completly piece of trash with perhaps some good points (very
few), but that me at least do need by now to achieve some tasks.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 10:33:28 GMT
> A less stable system is more prone to crashes, period. If you only stay
> up a day at a time you can reduce your chances of getting bit, but if
> your system isn't reliable, it *is* going to bite you sooner or later.
That's the point, trying to prevent that moment.
> And somehow they seem to know when you're doing something really
> important...
I agree :-))
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 04:40:18 -0600
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The lord of the rings use big fucking SGI workstations, not these limp
wristed,
> so-called "workstations" running Windows 2000, Chad Myers craps on about.
Hello,
SGI makes Windows 2000 workstations. In fact, the same exact hardware is
avialable with Linux is also available with NT/2000. There are, however, a
few products SGI makes that are NT/2000 only, just like they have products
that are IRIX only.
> why hasn't NT got a 64 bit journallying file system? BeOS has,
> IRIX has, Linux will have soon, why not NT?
NT has had a 64 bit journaled file system since 1993 when NT was first
released.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
