Linux-Advocacy Digest #761, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (Curtis)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (stelex)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (Bob Day)
Re: Uptimes strike back (mlw)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Windows review ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Windows review ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Uptimes strike back ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Uptimes strike back ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Uptimes (Pan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis <[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 06:46:54 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) posted:
| >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.
http://linux.nuvoli.to.it/varie/titanic/2494.html
You'll see that Digital Unix, NT and Linux were all used.
Both NT and Digital Unix were not selected for the final rendering
because of cost, not capability.
Linux's kernel needed significant enhancing to made suitable for the
process, but this is what OSS is about .... having access to source
which I can't take away as a definite advantage to Linux. :=)
Anyway, the point is that Linux helped in the making of Titanic. It
wasn't by any stretch of the imagination, exclusively used to create the
graphics in the Titanic. It proved to be the best choice for the final
rendering process but it wasn't used for actual design and creation of
Titanic graphics, that was a job for NT and Digital Unix machines.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ROT13 scrambled)
------------------------------
From: stelex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 13:18:02 +0000
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> No, it's LINUX, not the manufacturers. Linux doesn't support hardware that
> even the ISO/IEEE has landed on INTERNATIONAL standards for!
Not true. My HP DeskJet 842C works well.
> > >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 buy OS specific hardware(ms Win).. you are out of luck.
------------------------------
From: Bob Day <[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 13:17:20 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> "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.
>
deja.com is a big place. Can you be specific, so we don't get
the idea that you're waffling? And if you can't remember the name
of the article, perhaps you could find out.
-- Bob Day
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:36:13 -0500
Pedro Coto wrote:
>
> > 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.
The problem with your point is that a snapshot of a heavily loaded
system is indistinguishable in terms of fragmentation and randomization
(memory, disk, file handles, etc) from one that has been up for a long
time.
If the system can't run in a "steady state," where it does not get any
worse, after some point of time, it is useless.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[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 13:47:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Steve Mading writes:
>
> >>>> 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.
>
> >> Depends on what you consider "off" to be. When you turn your
> >> microwave oven off, do you expect it to lose the time? (Yes,
> >> that does presuppose an oven with a clock on the display.
> >> Are there any new models that don't have one of those built in?)
>
> > I haven't seen any microwaves with an on/off button lately.
>
> Okay then, "Start/Stop", if you must be pedantic.
>
> > If they had them, then yeah, I'd expect them to at least turn
> > the display off, and go down to a trickle that only serves
> > to maintain a few K of RAM (for the clock and maybe some programs)
> > (which takes very little power, as evidenced by calculators and
> > watches, and could be done by battery like it is for CMOS
> > settings on computers.)
>
> Even with the display on, it could still be a trickle.
All this "unintuitive" behavior of power switches is causing a major
problem in California. The issue of all these devices still drawing
power is keeping a load on the system that it wasn't designed to handle.
That coupled with lack of new power generation in California is putting
a strain on the system now, promising a major breakdown in the near
future. Relying to much on intuition and not enough on reason is going
to get a lot of people killed.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[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 14:03:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
Not really. Driving the tubes for HDTV takes lots more power than for a
standard scan. That is why the tube life was shortened. Recall that the
aspect ratio of HDTV is not the same as standard tv. The beam velocity
in horizontal is much greater and therefore requires more power. Also
the beam modulation is much higher. A typical HDTV has 3 or 4 computers
in it to control things. When it works it works great. Picture quality
is better than at the movies. But the power has to stay on or all you
can see is something like the colored light sequences from "Planet of
the Apes" or 2001.
Net result is that a standard TV will draw <<1 amp when "off" and 5 or 6
amps when "on", a large HDTV will draw 8-10Amps when "off" and 10-13
when "on".
My major concern is that if HDTV becomes standard, then I see power
demand increasing by 2-3% with no new resources to generate and
distribute the power. Do we need more pollution in Arizona just so couch
potatoes can get a better picture for beer commercials during Monday
Night (so called) Football?
More non intuitive behavior often referred to as "unintended
consequences".
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:04:06 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > How to obey the One Great Software Company (Microsoft).
> > > >
> > > > Really, how about programming? Or tuning the kernel?
> > >
> > > Out of any given 1,000 users, how many do you think actually write programs?
> > > Of those who even know about such things, how many care about tuning
> > > kernels?
> > >
> >
> > Most have to tune the kernel to get sound to work.
>
> That's intuitive.
>
It's not too hard
>
> Linux: The Best Multimedia OS (except when it's not)
>
> > > Grandpappy doesn't _want_ to hack kernels,
> >
> > Why doesn't he?
>
> Well, considering most can barely grasp the idea of double-clicking, hacking
> the kernel seems to be way to overbearing.
Setting configurations within the kernel is little more than clicking boxes, except
for entering the occasional IRQ or DMA or some such.
>
>
> Windows gives the appearance of being easy, but allows you to get down to
> the nitty gritty if you know what you're doing.
Really, how?
>
> Linux, OTOH, forces you to be a kernel developer to do the most basic
> things.
>
Clicking boxes is hardly kernel development, but your cluelessness
is well established.
>
> It tries not to be, but the overriding arrogance built into it is overwhelming
> for a novice user.
>
Arrogance? Compared to the hubris of the One True Software Company?
> > > him?
> >
> > What if wants to write them in a nice, nonproprietary format?
>
> Why would he want to do that? Most of them don't care,
Why don't they?
> they're just
> writing documents to print out. Besides, who cares about those poor Linux
> users who painted themselves into a corner and are now whining for everyone
> else to cave to their demands.
>
Go away, little troll
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:06:45 -0500
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> "Adam Schuetze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > It could be both, but how is that relevant? Do you have a
> > point? People who don't even bother to learn about the machines
> > they are using are lazy. Like people who drive a car, but don't
> > even know where to put oil in.
>
> "Putting oil in" is about on a par with running a defragger or a virus
> scanner. Hacking the kernel is more on a par with reboring your cylinders
> to crank out some extra power. Some folks seem to think this is important;
> others simply want to get in and drive.
You're just plain wrong.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[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 14:08:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
At $10K a pop, probably not. First market is sports bars. But there is a
surprising number of people willing to go into debt for useless junk.
First sale was to some guy who insisted he had to have one because his
neighbor got a direct view HDTV set. There was no scheduled HDTV
broadcasts at that time/place either!
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:13:16 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "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.
He said it wasn't an issue. The disk fragmentation on my Linux box, while
nonzero, isn't an issue (i. e. something I have to run and get a defragger
for)
> 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.
But you can reduce it to the extent that you don't have to worry about it.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:14:29 -0500
Pedro Coto wrote:
> > 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.
That's why we use Linux.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:35:50 -0500
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> > BSME?
>
> The "ME" is "Microsoft Engineer". I can't imagine what the "BS" might stand
> for.
Bull-sh*tting, as in bull-sh*tting Microsoft "Eng*". But, of course, you knew
that.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:47:56 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Because Linux lovers feel no shame in outright exclaiming from the rooftops
> that the end to Microsoft domination is here, in penguin form. Wake me when
> I can reliably update my Kernel, and OS level components without buying a
> new distro, recompiling something, or editing text files till the cows come
> home.
And how can one do this in Windows? Oh, I forgot, failing to worship
whatever MS puts in your box is heresy.
But seriously, one can download kernel updates for free, configure them in
xconfig (yes, this has the effect of editing text files, but the user is
basically
clicking boxes). As for recompiling, how hard is it to issue a make command?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:49:01 -0500
kiwiunixman wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Because Linux lovers feel no shame in outright exclaiming from the rooftops
> > that the end to Microsoft domination is here, in penguin form. Wake me when
> > I can reliably update my Kernel, and OS level components without buying a
> > new distro, recompiling something, or editing text files till the cows come
> > home.
> You can't compile a kernel or update you distro..fuck you must be a real
> dumb cunt,
Now stop insulting female genitalia.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 06:56:35 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > 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.
True. But if you are holding up Domino on nt as a model of reliability,
then my guess is that you haven't actually used it in a production
environment. There are 2 advantages to domino. You can easily spy on
all the mail sent by your employees. It is very easy to administer if
you understand how to point and click. But if it were stable, they
wouldn't need to integrate sendmail into the next release.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
