Linux-Advocacy Digest #770, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 18:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes strike back ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Joe Malloy")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Joseph Coughlan)
Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT (Pan)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (JoeX1029)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Marty)
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
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: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 19:52:50 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:16:27 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [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.
>
>Here is the reasoning behind not using NT:
>"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."
>
And he hasn't even bothered to touch the FACT
that NT and W2k won't handle a load of serious
proportions. It's difficult to make a MOVIE
when your computer needs to be rebooted serveral
times a day as it blue screens.
This seemed to be the OTHER IMPORTANT reason
the movie industry and companies like BOIENG
don't do serious work with Windows.
It not necessarily the computer, it's really
just WINDOWS.
Now explain to them the shortfalls in using W2k.
>Cost of the OS wasn't a factor, it was the OS they were using.
But as we all know now, it was a factor.
Their OS cost would have doubled.
>The lack of an automounter? What for?
>
Humm. I've asked myself if you have an operating
system which can stay up for a few weeks of heavy
use, why would this be a problem.
Since Windows can't under a heavy commercial load,
this is an issue.
>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.
>
And besides. NFS just isn't the Windows way.
>Symbolic links? NT supports hard links. They could've also used DFS
>which supports all sorts of linking including symbolic links across
>the network. This isn't a very valid argument either.
>
Not very well. When a machine blue screens it has
a tendency to throw little fiddly bits like this away.
>So basically it boils down to their software wasn't available on NT.
>
Humm. Well, I guess you and the other guy have a debate
then. He seems to think in todays world they have
software capable of doing the job. Little does he
know, he still needs an operating system.
I find it difficult to believe anybody would write any
software for this UNIQUE market for Windows.
Windows has always been the home use, small business
throw bag.
>Which software was this, exactly? They didn't mention it, so we can't
>validate the validity of this argument, but it will stand as a valid
>one for the time being.
>
Yeah. Why Windows.
>The primary argument against DUX was cost.
>
>"The biggest limitations of Digital UNIX were cost and lack of
> flexibility."
>
If you mean by lack of flexibility, it wouldn't run
the software, I'd say your right.
>So basically they didn't feel like using NT, and their software
>didn't run on it (which sounds unlikely. However it was in 1997,
>so the argument could be made), and DUX was too expensive.
>Linux was chosen because NT didn't support the software.
Well the other important thing was the company porting
the software knew they wanted to do it on an operating
system which didn't crash every 3-4 hours.
>That's essentially what it boils down to. This wasn't a victory
>for Linux as much as it was a defeat for Digial Unix and
>NT didn't win or lose.
>
>-Chad
>
HA! Your hillarious Chad.
Absolutely hillarious! Such a golden child you are.
Mommy! I didn't crap on the rug! The monster
in the closet did!
Windows has a market. That market isn't in specialty
software run by a small niche market. There's no money
in it for them, it's not Microsoft's customer base,
they aren't going to tune their {Operating System}
just for a specialty niche.
Yet surprisingly, Linux will perform this job
and it also performs the job of server and workstation
from the same CD across over a dozen computer systems.
And it handles business quite well also.
Toyota and Home Depot are wonderful additions to
the Unix BIG BUSINESS I WANT A USABLE OPERATING
SYSTEM CROWD. Toyota is the largest car company
in the world and Home Depot is the largest
hardware/lumber/utility tool supplier in the
nation. Home Depot's initial order was for
90,000 Linux powered cash registers.
I don't know about Toyota's initial order
from Dell. It was so big it will be in
stages. Essentially they are going to
incorporate Linux in every aspect of
Toytota business from plants here in
the US and Japan to the parts wharehouses
thru the dealerships@ww.
So the point of this is to make certain
that everybody know the scope of capabilities
of Linux is much broader than Microsoft
products and it's much more reliable.
And now with the 2.4 kernel, infinitley
faster.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 9 Dec 2000 15:57:00 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > OH NO! Not the Titanic thing again. Where's Stephen when you need him.
> > 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.
>
> Chat, that's a goddamned lie, and you know it.
You're the one lying here.
> The render farm was originally 100% NT, and couldn't hack it--causing
> the project to start slipping behind schedule.
Digital Domain, the special effects company stated point blank that they
never ran the render farm on NT, it would have been too much effort to port
their software. That's why they chose Linux, since a port would be easier.
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue46/2494.html
"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. "
You were saying?
> They started converting the renderfarm to Linux as quickly as
> possible (without interrupting ongoing processes), and were more
> than 2/3 converted by the time the work was done
And your reference to this is what?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 15:58:27 -0600
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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)
He also said the kernel prevented fragmentation.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:02:32 -0600
"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>No. I stated you had to reboot to remove TCP/IP either in Windows or
Linux.
> >>Others in this thread started saying "Why remove it when you can merely
> >>disable it" and when I said you could disable it the same way under
Windows,
> >>you made the claim that you couldn't.
> >
> >No that isn't what you said Fukenbush. You said you could remove
> >TCP/IP from Windows without rebooting. And I said you were full
> >of shit then.
>
> Actually, he's right, Erik. You started out showing how you can remove
> and then add the protocol, and it will still work, if you ignore the
> direction to reboot. I corrected that by pointing out that if you do
> reboot after removing, you have to reboot to add. That's when you
> switched to talking about binding the protocol, rather than removing it.
No, I didn't and I challenge you to post a deja link to said statement.
I started out showing how you can DISABLE TCP/IP, not REMOVE it in a manner
similar to removing the IP address from an adapter in Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[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 21:46:37 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
Yes, let's. Some snippets:
...Others are requests for new functionality, and others reflect "plain
confusion as to how something is supposed to work."
...More than 27,000 "BugBug" comments. These are usually notes to developers
to make something work better or more efficiently.
...Microsoft is estimating that 28,000 of these are likely to be "real"
problems.
27000 requests to improve things; feature requests, not bugs. Almost half
the claimed number of bugs. Sorry, I missed where you get support for
"63,000 bugs" out of the references you provided.
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[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 22:05:56 GMT
The Tholen tholes:
> > I haven't seen any microwaves with an on/off button lately.
>
> Okay then, "Start/Stop", if you must be pedantic.
Whoa, this is the pot calling the kettle black! Pedantic to the
point of silliness, Tholen now turns around and uses pedanticism as
an attack. Great going, Tholen, you're really low on the
consistency list now!
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[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 22:06:12 GMT
Tholen tholes:
> > Silly me, I thought I was talking about text editors, not signs.
>
> Something wrong with a simple analogy to help illustrate a point?
Wattsamatta, Tholen, you don't like being called on the carpet for
an inappropriate "analogy"?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:09:38 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Check this out:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html
Why is it that you people can't read the articles you quote?
The article is based on an internal memo from MS which states:
"63,000 potential known defects". Note the word potential.
Further, the memo classifies those 63,000 as:
"More than 21,000 "postponed" bugs, an indeterminate number of which
Microsoft is characterizing as "real problems." Others are requests for new
functionality, and others reflect "plain confusion as to how something is
supposed to work." "
In other words, of those 21,000 many are not bugs at all, being either
feature requests or end-user error.
Also:
"More than 27,000 "BugBug" comments. These are usually notes to developers
to make something work better or more efficiently. According to Microsoft,
they tend to represent "unfinished work" or "long-forgotten problems." "
So in otherwords, at least 27,000 of those 63,000 are not bugs in the
traditional sense either, but rather notes to developers that something
could be done better.
28,000 of those are considered, by the same memo they're quoting, to be real
problems. And of course, many of those are obscure bugs that only effect
tiny percentages of the user base.
Compare that to the debian bug database which lists many thousands of bugs
as well.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:14:06 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
And you can elevate yourself on Linux as well. Bugs exist. Big deal.
> If you are saying that one cannot intercept
> Ctrl-Alt-Del without admin priviledges, then you
> are saying something very trivial.
That's exactly what I *ORIGNALLY* said, and what you disagreed with. Don't
blame your lack of reading comprehension on me.
> However, using the Win32 API, a program can indeed
> escalate its priviledges.
By taking advantage of bugs, which get fixed.
> 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.
Don't get all bent out of shape because you didn't read something correctly.
That's your own fault.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:20:28 -0800
From: Joseph Coughlan <[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...
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > [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.
>
> 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.
That's news to us.
Electrical power is available for the right price so there really is NOT a
shortage - just a shortage of power for sale at a regulated low price. The
simple truth is we've begun to de-regulate power in CA. These some of the
logistical issues as the system is de-regulated.
What you'll see if the free market is allowed to work is a large increase in
power prices as power is sold to the highest bidder. No for profit power
company will willing refuse to make a huge profit selling to CA and they
could care less about ECO-bashing and blame. We'll pay and we'll get our
power. Maybe our demand will increase the cost of power in the West if not
the US. Why not? That's a free market. Let them build nuclear plants
somewhere else if they're as good as others think. We'll buy that power off
the power grid.
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:19:00 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Requirements:
Using the de facto standard tools on each system, I was curious about
the licensing cost for a single server setup that will handle a fairly
light to moderate amout of public traffic. Since I don't want to
download anything, we'll use cheapbytes pricing for the Linux system
and the pricing from Microsoft's web site.
Requirements: SQL database, scalable to roughly 10,000-15,000 records,
smtp server, http server, programming tools for 2 developers.
Application Linux Windows
=================================================
1. OS RH7.0 $8.99 W2K $1,199
2. Mail Server Sendmail $0.00 Exchange $1,299
3. Database PostGreSQL $0.00 SeQueL $4,999 + $499/developer system
4. HTTP Apache $0.00 iis $ 0.00 *included in w2k.
5. programming tools *see below$0.00 VisStudio$2158 = $1079 / license
* perl, gcc, python, php, java.
Totals w/o Hardware:
Linux $9.99 ( incl. $5.00 shipping )
M$: $10154.00
Now, take both server systems and run each on a single processor
machine. Which one do you think would perform the best?
As a developer, would you rather have your company spending $10000 on
licensing or would you rather have them spend that money, even half of
that money on additional salary for their development team?
Now, we ordered the expensive ( $4.99 vs $3.99 ) version of RH linux
because we wanted the source code as well as the binaries. How much do
you think microsoft would charge for that little add-on? :)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 09 Dec 2000 22:16:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
{snip some stuff that dosen't intrest me...}
>(source code was
>freely available...in fact, you can STILL >buy it at Barnes and Noble
I can still buy the AT&T Unix v6 source at B&N?? What section would that be
under...??
{being totally serious, what section do i find that in (i want it..), i could
probaly look, but im a lazy person}
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 22:19:59 +0000
Peter Hayes wrote:
> The reason NT, or all Windows OSs for that matter, ask for a reboot is
> because M$ know full well that none of their OSs will run for more than a
> few hours (a few days for NT - wasn't it five days Bill G admitted to when
> launching W2K?) without seizing up. Rebooting is a convenient way of
> resetting the clock as it were.
Oh please! I run several machines with Windows 98 SE, Windows ME and
Windows 2000. None of them seize up after a few hours!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
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 22:06:30 GMT
In article <hIxY5.4106$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90tn0v$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.
Read the posts! THe uptime numbers SUPPORT the netcraft numbers is
showing that W2K is unstable!
>
>
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 22:16:25 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.
>
> Where is the alleged invective, Marty?
Haven't you been paying attention?
> I'm simply your own description for your own behavior.
Incorrect, given that I never described my current behavior as such.
> > Figures.
>
> Figures that you would pontificate about alleged invective.
Figures that you would refer to your invective as being descriptive in order
to save face.
> > Nonetheless babies do speak a language of sorts which was not learned
> > by example.
>
> Is that what you consider "walking and talking", Marty?
That's what I consider "a language of sorts which was not learned by
example". Haven't you been paying attention? This directly challenges your
statement:
"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."
> > Does a mother cry in front of a baby when she wants something from
> > it?
>
> Is that what you consider "walking and talking", Marty?
That's what I consider "a language of sorts which was not learned by
example". Haven't you been paying attention? This directly challenges your
statement:
"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."
------------------------------
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 16:28:09 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90uad3$4ij$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <hIxY5.4106$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:90tn0v$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.
>
> Read the posts! THe uptime numbers SUPPORT the netcraft numbers is
> showing that W2K is unstable!
I did read the post.
Adam Ruth said:
> What you say is true for Netcraft numbers. The numbers, however,
> are from www.uptimes.net.
And you responded with:
"Thank you."
------------------------------
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 22:15:22 GMT
In article <UHxY5.4105$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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.
So, it is 2 sites using 2 different ways of colecting data that supports
the claim that W2K is unstable. And, it's 0 sites using 0 ways of
collecting data that show W2K as sable.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
