Linux-Advocacy Digest #769, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Caifornia power shortage... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows review (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows review (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:17:42 GMT
Russ Lyttle writes:
>> 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.
Illogical. It is quite possible that people will generally know what
to do with a power switch without needing to consult a manual, but will
not generally know how much power is consumed in the on and off states.
Consider the AC adaptor for a modem, for example. The power switch is
on the modem, not the AC adaptor.
> The issue of all these devices still drawing power is keeping a
> load on the system that it wasn't designed to handle.
Are you suggesting that systems outside of California were somehow
designed to handle it?
> 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.
Sounds like those Californians are going to have to do without their
72-inch projection televisions. (Did your Curtis Mathes need 10 amps
to keep its filament going?)
> Relying to much on intuition and not enough on reason is going
> to get a lot of people killed.
The power consumed by a device in the off state has absolutely
nothing to do with the issue of whether the power switch itself
is intuitive.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:19:24 -0500
Mike Marion wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Actually, the REAL problem is that the ECO-NUTS in California shut
> > down practically every fission power project that came down the pike
> > in the 1970's.
> >
> > If those plants had been built, a lot of oil-fired and coal-fired
> > plants would have been taken off-line a long time ago AND Cali.
> > would STILL have surplus capacity.
>
> Not to mention the growth here. I mean, jesus, we don't have enough power for
> the people here, yet I've not heard a single official (or SDG&E reps) suggest
> that perhaps we should slow down the massive home building constantly going on
> here. What's going to happen in a year, or two when our population grows by
> that much more?
>
> I shudder to think.
Leftwing Liberal paranoid eco-freak's worst nightmare...
Public DEMANDS for nuclear power plants.
Of course, this is exactly the situation which the radical left
was hoping for....a general degradation of life in the US...it's
part of their overall strategy of trying to cause internal collapse
within the United States so that a power-vacuum will occur, allowing
them to sweep into power and install a Communist state.
>
> --
> Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
> Homer Simpson: "To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's
> problems." -- Simpsons
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[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 21:07:33 GMT
[snips]
"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Well, as noted, your method doesn't work, so even if your method is 100
> >times faster, does it matter?
>
> How doesn't it work?
Let's try it:
C:\>"mkdir \My Documents\misc\I_am_a_directory"
Bad command or filename
Hmm...
C:>mkdir \My Documents\misc\I_am_a_directory
Too many parameters - Documents\misc\I_am_a_directory
So, whether one assumes you intended the entire thing to be quoted, or you
were using quotes simply to indicate the operation, it doesn't work either
way.
> >Hmm; less than a second to load here, I just tried it. On a moderately
>
> 4 seconds for explorer to open. How long for the command line to open?
> 0 secs: it's already there!
Is it? Not here it's not.
> >or so to navigate the menu, yup - long time. 'Course as a Windows
_user_,
> >i.e. someone who actually regularly uses Windows and is familiar with it,
I
> >probably keep several of my commonly-used programs on the quick-launch
bar;
> >in that case, no menu navigation involved at all - 2 seconds to launch,
> >total.
>
> Is that taking into account the moving the hand to the mouse, and then
> moving the mouse about etc?
Well, if you're a GUI user, your mouse is usually conveniently placed
instead of stuck behind the monitor under a pile of magazines; if it takes
you more than about a quarter second to go from keyboard to mouse - or
back - you should probably see an ergonomics consultant.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[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 21:09:51 GMT
[snips]
"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >something, and second, that the destination actually _exists_ - something
> >you'd have to do manually via the CLI.
>
> Why would you be even thinking about files that didn't exist?
Destination. Ya know, the folder where the files are going to?
> Maybe I
> might think "I know, I'll move these files to directory X. But does
> directory X even exists? Who knows, but it'll be fun finding out!"
Ya copies, ya pastes - and in the process of pasting you _see_ whether the
target exists or not. Simple, effective.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[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 21:15:29 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > Your way accomplishes the same thing... without the flexibility... at
the
> > expense of about 30 extra keystrokes, as opposed to about 6 mouse
clicks.
> > How is your way better?
>
> How many keystrokes equal a mouse click might be a reasonable question.
> For example, to move to the top of this window to save this message, I
have
> to drag the mouse up there, slow down as I approach the File menu, then
> click.
Or hit CTRL-S to save, ALT-S to send (particulars on the latter may vary
with your client). Two keystrokes.
> A reasonable typist could type maybe 5 letters in that time.
> A fast typist might do 15.
So, you're advocating typing 5 or 15 keystrokes or possibly even more to
accomplish what can be done in two. How is this an improvement? Oh, did
you forget that most GUIs have keyboard shortcuts for common tasks?
> > Which parts of that are worth scripting?
>
> Some parts, if he hasn't disable Word macros to protect against macro
> virii. He would go faster if he used the keystroke shortcuts.
Sorry, how do you plan to script the loading of a file in a manner notably
more efficiently than simply opening it?
> > Sure; mine's not, however. He is a copious writer and diehard
researcher,
> > though, and does that quite well without ever seeing a command line.
Hell,
> > if I thought there was any benefit in it for him, _I'd_ teach him how to
use
> > it. He's a bright guy, should pick it up in no time. However, I can't
see
> > any benefit of it to him.
>
> I hope you asked Gramps, rather than making that decision for him!
> Gramps, Kelsey's hiding things from you!!!!
Since the proponents of the tool haven't been able to identify a benefit for
him, what would be the value in it?
------------------------------
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 21:32:17 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.
> Not really. Driving the tubes for HDTV takes lots more power than for a
> standard scan.
10 amps??? Give me a break. HDTV simply scans 1080 lines horizontally
across the screen instead of the NTSC standard of 525. Each scan line
is longer than in NTSC due to the 16:9 aspect ratio compared to the 4:3.
Does HDTV specify a brighter picture than NTSC in addition to the higher
resolution? If not, then to first order the power consumption should
go as the area of the screen; that is, bigger screens need more power.
The higher resolution isn't going to cause much more than a factor of
three increase in power.
> 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.
10 amps??? Give me a break. I've got a computer monitor in my office
running at greater than HDTV resolution (1600x1200 for the computer
monitor). It doesn't need 10 amps.
> Also the beam modulation is much higher. A typical HDTV has 3 or 4
> computers in it to control things.
10 amps??? Give me a break. Do they also keep the computers running
when the set is off?
> 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.
Back to the drawing board.
> 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".
It breaks my heart that the Californians will have to do without
their large HDTV.
> 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?
Then perhaps you might want to start a thread in some newsgroup
about power generation and distribution. The issue here was whether
something about computers can be intuitive.
> More non intuitive behavior often referred to as "unintended
> consequences".
Does that make the power switch non-intuitive?
------------------------------
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 21:33:59 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.
> 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!
Maybe he lives in a cold location so that the set can double as a
space heater.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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 21:36:27 GMT
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> So, you're advocating typing 5 or 15 keystrokes or possibly even more to
> accomplish what can be done in two. How is this an improvement? Oh, did
> you forget that most GUIs have keyboard shortcuts for common tasks?
You must not have read my other posts. I take advantage of keyboard shortcuts
all the time. They're the next best thing to a CLI <grin>.
> Sorry, how do you plan to script the loading of a file in a manner notably
> more efficiently than simply opening it?
Beats me.
> >
> > I hope you asked Gramps, rather than making that decision for him!
> > Gramps, Kelsey's hiding things from you!!!!
>
> Since the proponents of the tool haven't been able to identify a benefit for
> him, what would be the value in it?
You're a serious dog! You probably argue with people who walk a different
path to the same destination, telling them they can save two steps and
1.5 seconds by using you're path. The only reasonable answer to such a
challenge is "I went that way because I felt like it."
Why do these newsgroups attract such pedantry?
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 15:40:28 -0600
"SwifT -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Hmm.. seems like every patch in the 2.2 kernel says fix for this bug, or
fix
> > for that bug, usually listing memory leaks, driver bugs, and all sorts
of
> > stuff. Yeah, they included new functionality as well, but then so do
the
> > NT4 service packs. Starting with Win2k, service packs will not add new
> > functionality, just bug fixes.
>
> NT SP bugfixes outnumber thoses of the kernel. Most bugfixes in kernels
> are meant for the unstable kernels (2.odd.* or 2.even.*-test??-pre??).
That's because an NT SP fixes include non-kernel programs as well, like the
shell. If you included all the bug fix patches for any given distribution,
including kernel, it's about the same.
And look at the release notes for 2.2.17 alone, there are no less than 13
mentions of fixed bugs, and some of them are plural, indicating more than
one bug (for instance the phrase "Various bugs fixed").
2.2.16 lists 22 instances of "bug" used to describe a bug (there are several
instances of "bug" used to describe buggy hardware, but I don't count
those). Again, several of those refer to bug as plural, bugs.
Now granted, some of those bugs do not effect stability, but most of them
do. Also, many of them are driver bugs, but then NT SP's also fix driver
bugs.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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 21:38:22 GMT
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> Well, if you're a GUI user, your mouse is usually conveniently placed
> instead of stuck behind the monitor under a pile of magazines; if it takes
> you more than about a quarter second to go from keyboard to mouse - or
> back - you should probably see an ergonomics consultant.
Now you know why many programmers prefer vi or emacs.
------------------------------
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 21:39:36 GMT
JM writes:
>>>>> What? Is your keyboard made out of foil or something?
>>>> Illogical. What does foil have to do with anything?
>>> "Illogical"?
>> That is what I wrote.
> Are you sure?
Suffering from reading comprehension problems?
>>> Are you some fucking star-trek freak or something?
>> Illogical; one does not need to be a "star-trek freak" to identify an
>> illogical statement.
> One would probably be a star-trek freak to use terms like "illogical"
> after a light-humoured keyboard statement.
On what basis do you make that claim? It simply needs to be an
illogical statement to justify someone's description of the statement
as illogical. The word was around for a long time before Star Trek
came into existence.
>>> As for mentioning foil: what would you use if referring to a keyboard
>>> where the keys can move about?
>> I don't have any such keyboard, thus I haven't had the need to think
>> of a word for it.
> Jesus Christ: why do you have to take everything so seriously?
Why do you have to invoke the name of a deity?
>>>>> The escape key's usually near the "1" key,
>>>> On the contrary, it's by the F1 key. The tilde is next to the "1" key.
>>> I said "near", not "next".
>> The Esc key is nearer to the F1 key. The tilde is nearer to the "1" key.
>> Does that make you any happier?
> The escape key is nearer to the "1" key thatn the "F1" key.
Not on my keyboard.
>>>>> but the cursor keys are miles away.
>>>> Mighty big keyboard you have there.
>>> Well where are YOUR cursor keys then?
>> About the same distance as the Esc key. Didn't I already say that?
> Same distance? What sort of corrupted keyboard are you using?
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm using a "corrupted" keyboard.
>>>>>> Those letters aren't on the home row.
>>>>> They are if you've been painting new letters on people's keyboards to
>>>>> confuse them!
>>>> Is that something you do?
>>> Often. It's almost as fun as putting broken glass shards in the local
>>> swimming pool. In the shallow end!
>> Figures.
> Yawn.
Such behavior is so casual for you!
>>>> Any relation to "Moul"?
>>> What????
>> Any relation to "Moul"? Something not clear about that question?
> The meaning of "Moul" isn't quite clear.
What do you think "relation" means?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 15:46:15 -0600
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90tkmm$2o9g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
I don't think uptimes.net is very scientific either. It's basically like an
online poll.
The people that download and install the uptime client are also likely to be
the people that are always running "on the edge". Installing new stuff
often, versus a typical web site or ftp server which will probably almost
never install anything new. (Hell, lots of those old servers with long
uptimes are running 1.2 versions of Apache)
So it's essentially only polling those people that are inclined to
participate.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 15:46:40 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90tn0v$m2i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Glad to hear you're finally admitting the netcraft numbers are bogus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:43:41 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:16:27 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>"Windows NT had several shortfalls. First, our standard applications,
> which normally run on SGI hardware, were not available under NT. Our
> software staff could port the tools, but that solution would be quite
> expensive. NT also had several other limitations; it didn't support an
> automounter, NFS or symbolic links, all of which are critical to our
> distributed storage architecture. There were third-party applications
> available to fill some of these holes, but they added to the cost and,
> in many cases, did not perform well in handling our general computing
> needs."
>The lack of an automounter? What for?
I think it says right there..."critical to our distributed storage
architecture". In a typical Unix environment, you'll have lots of
machines acting as file servers, and you have various different cpu and
os combinations along with assorted apps compiled for the different
architectures.
The automounter in combination with NIS it is a convenient way to
manage user home directories. For instance, you can set up NIS maps of
where everyone's home directory is so no matter where they log in their
home directory will get mounted to the machine they're on. You can
also do things like mount different application directories depending
on the cpu and os of the machine. This is very useful if you have a
heterogeneous environment but need the same apps available to all of
the platforms. If you're clever you can make it work automatically
without having to manually configure each machine.
I wouldn't expect you to know what the automounter is good for, your
having lived a sheltered life and all, but it is a very useful thing.
>NFS? There are several freeware NFS client/servers for NT, and several
>commercial ones for relatively little cost, so this argument seems
>wrong or unresearched. This isn't a valid argument.
If you read the article in Linux Journal about this, they explain that
the NFS clients for NT were not reliable and were difficult to set up.
>Symbolic links? NT supports hard links.
Symbolic links can point to other filesystems, even automounted ones.
Anyway, NT's supposed support for hard links in 1997 really amounts to
NTFS having the capability but no way for users to access it.
>So basically it boils down to their software wasn't available on NT.
Which I would say is a pretty damn big deal, wouldn't you? That's
about 80% of your argument against Linux after all..."no apps".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
