Linux-Advocacy Digest #763, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 12:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Caught me a Lino-Troll Mr. T-Max (Swangoremovemee)
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux lacks (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:11:36 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:47:56 -0500, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And how can one do this in Windows? Oh, I forgot, failing to worship
>whatever MS puts in your box is heresy.
We don't have to.
Neither do the folks who run Solaris, SCO or Aix, MVS, VM or Mac/OS.
That is because those operating systems work with little intervention
from the user and that same user can concentrate on applications.
>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?
Easy to issue the command.
Not so easy to have a working kernel when you are done.
Swango
>Colin Day
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caught me a Lino-Troll Mr. T-Max
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:12:59 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 06:19:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Black Dragon) wrote:
>
>On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 02:45:37 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Swangoremovemee' said:
>
>[...]
>
>: "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
>
>Pot - Kettle - Black!
>
>This crap from someone who has used some 30 plus aliases in less than
>a year to Troll in COLA? Dude! (Dudette?) How much is Microsoft
>paying you to whore yourself like this?
What the heck are you talking about?
I just signed up with Worldnet last week, at $4.99 a month I might
add.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:14:39 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 05:18:30 -0500, jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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?
They use it to sort the screws, nuts and bolts in aisle 14. Somebody
hacked together a Perl script and they were hooked on Linux.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:19:53 GMT
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >
> > I'm afraid your understanding of 'credibility' is a bit skewed, Kelsey.
>
> Is it? Let's see; he claims (without offering support) 63,000 bugs - not
> issues, bugs, which is a *hell* of a lot higher than the figures I've seen.
> Perhaps he has a vaild source, but his simply saying that there are this
> many doesn't make it so. When asked for support for this claim, his
> comeback was someone with my name, supposedly a programmer at Microsoft.
> Possible, but very remotely so.
>
> Which is to say, he's failed to actually support his claim in any
> substantial manner, so there is no reason to accept his claim. Further, his
> refusal to support it detracts from any credence we can put in his further
> claims, since he's established a record of failing to substantiate his
> claims when asked. That isn't a case of damaged credibility?
Check this out:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html
Also go to google and search for "63,000 bugs".
Chris
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:21:29 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 10:31:18 GMT, "Pedro Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> A matter of portentage, very funny being sarcastic but that won't
>hide the truth, we like it or not.
The Linux users are very good at hiding the truth, but just one look
at how pathetic Linux compares to Windows 2000 is usually enough to
send any newbie scurrying back to Windows pronto.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:25:21 GMT
Erik, you'll make a fine sophist. If I don't need
admin priviledges in order to steal admin priviledges,
then I'd say I don't need admin priviledges (at first)
to take over your box.
If you are saying that one cannot intercept
Ctrl-Alt-Del without admin priviledges, then you
are saying something very trivial.
However, using the Win32 API, a program can indeed
escalate its priviledges.
You are about the most argumentative, thick-headed
numbnuts I've come across in quite awhile.
You're so busy arguing, you can't even learn.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:26:34 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:26:20 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh, like you've actually tried it or anything.
Funny thing is I never play with the fonts under Windows and in fact I
don't even have a clue what fonts are installed. All I do is select
"larger text" in IE and use the Rainy Day desktop theme and everything
looks perfect. I have a G200 and G400 as well and with Linux no matter
what I do it looks like crap on my 21 inch Sony.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:27:30 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > It depends which side of Texas you live in. If the central/west
> > side, then having a low-volume toilet sounds like a good thing
> > to me, something that any sensible person would go along with
> > to help the rest of the community.
>
> But that should be a PERSONAL CHOICE.
>
> If you think your water bills are too high, then replace your
> toilet and reduce consumption.
>
> Conversely, if you notice that you're flushing 3x and therefore
> using MORE water, then you should have the option of going back.
No, you should stop eating so much and generating such large
massives that your toilet can't handle it.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:29:23 GMT
tony roth wrote:
>
> "Ah, so the scenario has changed. Okay, I'm done. You might
> consider learning rather than arguing"
>
> your an idiot chris at what point did this scenario change, erik never
> stated anything different then admins where admins and users where users.
> This is a standard setup of nt/w2k, if you'd like you can change that but
> its not the standard config!
So I'm an idiot. Tell me something my daughter doesn't tell me
five times a day. Erik's done a good job of wiggling in his
arguments.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: 9 Dec 2000 16:33:41 GMT
If it weren't free in the freedom sense I wouldn't be interested. I'd
use FreeBSD instead.
I will never again use nonfree software by choice.
Since my time is valuable, the dollar cost of software is seldom an
issue for me, but the time cost is. Linux took me a while to learn to
use productively, but it has repaid that cost dozens if not hundreds
of times over.
Joe
------------------------------
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 16:26:25 GMT
In article <%dsY5.12215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90thsf$ik4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <1bmY5.10824$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "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.
> >
> > I have. I made the claim that NETCRAFT STATED... I then posted what
> > netcraft stated! What I have claimed is true, The top 50 according
to
> > netcraft has NO MS OS's LISTED! YOU made the claim
> >
>
> You are right you did repeat (plagerize) what Netcraft said. Truth,
> unlikely. Show where I made any such claim.
That's real easy, Read this post from start to finish, you will see that
you did indeed make the claim " In the top 50 of a majorly flawed data
gathering process. Moot indeed."
The actual message the claim came from
http://x74.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=0&mhitnum=21&CONTEXT=976378753.1609105419
What's the mater Chad, why won't you even stand behind your own claims?
Now 2 sources are showing evidance that W2K is unstable:
netcraft and uptime
http://x76.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=5&AN=702846300.1&mhitnum=6&CONTEXT=976374076.1878327313
What do you have as proof to the contrary? Your unproven claim that
Uptime data gathering if flawed? Your unproven claim that the data
gathering for W2K by Netcraft is flawed? So far there are 2 uptime sites
that use DIFFERENT methods that show evidance that W2K is not stable.
Where is any evidance that W2K is stable out side the lab?
>
> >
> > In the top 50 of a majorly flawed data gathering process. Moot
> > > > indeed.
> > > > >
> >
> >
> > And you need to prove it or you are nothing but a troll!
> >
>
> Tell us what method they used. Others have posted statements by
Netcraft
> indicating that thier gathering process is imperfect, leading to
imperfect
> data.
No, Netcraft explained how different network configurations affected the
data, and not that the gathering process for W2K information was
imperfect. Besides, we live in an imperfect world, No data SAMPLING is
perfect, that does not negate the usefulness of the data.
Blind faith, yours, isn't proof of their accuracy, you use their
> statements, selectively, to support your outrageous claims yet ignore
other
> statements. Tell us what method or crawl back under your tiny little
> bridge.
>
> >
> > >
> > > <trimmed>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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 16:34:13 GMT
In article <IRiY5.85621$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "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.
Yeah, and the staff that needed to keep and unstable OS up and running
if far greater than the staff needed to keep a stable OS up and running.
Two sources now show evidance that W2K is not stable
Uptime (with a little math to get past the fact that more linux
computers are listed in the report)
http://x76.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=5&AN=702846300.1&mhitnum=6&CONTEXT=976374076.1878327313
And www.netcraft.com
Trying to keep an OS as unstable as W2K seems to be is very time
consuming, demanding more staff and more Salaries. So, not only is Linux
cheaper to start with, the fact that it seems to be more stable than W2K
goes a long way in showing that the staffing and thus the salaries
required for Linux is LESS thatn W2K. Linux looks like it is gaining the
advantage of lower TCO as well as stability!
>
> : 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
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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 16:35:43 GMT
In article <90tkmm$2o9g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A good formula except for the minor fact that T is a random figure
> generated
> > by some obscure process that no-one seems to be able to even
hypothesize
> and
> > N has been shown to be inaccurate as it actually counts domain names
not
> > actual systems.
>
> What you say is true for Netcraft numbers. The numbers, however, are
from
> www.uptimes.net.
Thank you.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:37:33 GMT
"Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90rvcr$g4h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It is time to look at predictions for the year past - 2000:
> This one's by Drestin Black:
> "Message-ID: <hrlL3.7102$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'll argue with you there. I am willing to take a double or nothing bet
> from
> you, Windows 2000 will sell 2x more copies than the combined sales of
> Linux
> in 2000."
>
> Sadly enough, I think Dres wins this one. But if you look at it, it's
> kind of a wussy guess - I mean Win has 90% of the desktop market...
Not really considering the main Penguinistas have been predicting for
awhile now that Linux growth will skyrocket, which it certainly hasn't done.
I bet if you look at the context of the predictions that Drestin made,
someone was claiming that no one will buy Win2K and that Linux will start
it's rise to domination, which certinaly hasn't happened in the least.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
