Linux-Advocacy Digest #781, Volume #30 Sun, 10 Dec 00 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptimes (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Uptimes (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows review ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (B. P. Uecker)
Re: Uptimes (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped) (JoeX1029)
Re: Uptimes ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: HardcoreLinux.com domain name for sale ("The PhantomAss")
Re: Uptimes ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (JoeX1029)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Several items (Re: Nothing to say but, WOW) (JoeX1029)
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (Swangoremovemee)
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Ad (Swangoremovemee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:01:26 GMT
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000 15:46:40 -0600,
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.
>
Sorry to disappoint you but, your wrong.
Netcrafts numbers are from live - interactive investigation of
participating sites.
And they are not bogus. They have a method of determining fraud.
And the reason why Microsoft has no uptime is because nobody can
keep their server running more than a month.
Hope this helps.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:01:47 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 17:34:04 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If the vendors are shipping good drivers for Windows and the Mac, but not
>for Linux, then you should be complaining to those vendors and threatening
>to take your business elsewhere, instead of whingeing about it here.
Been there and done that and quite frankly I am tired of the dead
silence that I get at the other end of the phone every time I mention
Linux.
Swango
>
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:03:26 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 17:39:49 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>pile of work-a-day software in a commercial environment. Also managed
>VAXClusters in an environment where taking down a single node for a
>reboot, even at 4am on Sunday morning, would result in a flood of angry
>phone calls to the data center. Try to convince me that I wanted a MS
>solution in *that* environment.
You're talking to the person whose beeper was beeping at 4am after you
fsked everything up so you will get no pity from me.
BTW I have been doing it for 25 years.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:05:27 GMT
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 00:08:01 GMT,
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <cjyY5.4112$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "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."
>>
>
>Yep, he showed that Chad did not know what he was talking about. I
>thought the statement was "The numbers may..." Any way, the error I made
>is VERY slight compared to the Error chad made.
>
>Number of independant sources with numbers that support the claim that
>W2K is unstable? 2, Number of sources with numbers that support the
>claim that W2K is stable? 0.
>
>
>Number of methods used to get the numbers that are used to support the
>claim the W2K is unstable? 2.
>
>So, 2 sets of numbers, gathered by different methods, indicate that W2K
>is unstable! What proof do you have that is comperable to this that
>shows W2K stable? That silly thing you tried with the IP history of
>netcraft? What evidance do you have that the numbers are wrong? Chad's
>statement `I don't know how they do it so it is impossible`?
>
>
Well. Anybody who's ran windows can determine this for themselves.
How many times have you heard a kid complain about his game
locking up and causing his system to crash under windows?
How many times at the office has the main server come down.
Most shops answer this with once very quarter. This is typical.
How many times have you been scanning something or writing a simple
word document and all of a sudden, your system totally locks up
or blue screens!!!
Anybody who's used windows and isn't a totally fraudlent personality
such as Fukenbush would know this without having to debate
some website reporting the ALREADY OBVIOUS facts!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:06:16 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > Well, considering most can barely grasp the idea of double-clicking,
hacking
> > the kernel seems to be way to overbearing.
> >
> > Windows gives the appearance of being easy, but allows you to get down
to
> > the nitty gritty if you know what you're doing.
> >
> > Linux, OTOH, forces you to be a kernel developer to do the most basic
> > things.
> >
> > It tries not to be, but the overriding arrogance built into it is
overwhelming
> > for a novice user.
>
> Neat, I never knew an OS could be arrogant!
>
> > Why would he want to do that? Most of them don't care, 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.
>
> You got it wrong, Chad. Linux arose because a large group of people
> decided to create an operating system that does what they want.
...And that does what they want reliably and consistantly.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: B. P. Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 23:12:21 -0600
Bob Hauck wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>It is basically acceptable as a server platform but beyond its circle
>>of devotees (and dolts who who can do no better than parrot slashdot)
>>it has no mindshare.
>
>No mindshare? Linux? You gotta be kidding me.
The joke, if there is one, is on provincial geeks who think that what
they play with in their spare time is The Next Big Thing. Linux is a
schizophrenic mess and shows every sign of remaining so. Its window
managers are abject crap. If it is a return to anything, it is a
return to nonstandard interfaces, poorly documented programs, and
weekend coder methodology. I think we can do without all that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:14:55 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 23:36:30 GMT,
Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Is Linux really cheaper than NT to use for a web site? That depends, for a
>mom & pop site it's definetly the case. For a commercial web site Linux is
>actually more expensive. Commercial entities will not build they own
>servers, they will buy it from OEMs with OS. Ordering servers with Linux is
>more expensive than servers with NT.
This seems to contradict itself. Is it your assertion that Linux or Windows
is cheaper. I think you should at least state your case without changing
your mind in the same paragraph. Try to keep your mind straight thru
the entire document and if you change it later, do it on a different
usenet posting. It's un-polite to express yourself into a hole in
just one paragraph.
The point about Linux being more expensive than a Windows server is
bullshit as Windows servers are sold by the seat. A Windows server
for 100 people would cost $10,000. The same hardware with Linux
installed would be probably $3,000 total cost. You mainly end
up just counting the hardware cost.
People who point out Windows is less expensive than Linux even
AFTER you already know Linux is FREE and they charge for Windows
are escapee's from your local ZOO. That's right! They are
indeed chimpanzee's who've broken into somebody's home and
are trying to impress you with their internet skills.
This would explain the slight deviations in logic they
have from the normal human brain.
>The other cost factors for a new web
>site, routers, firewalls, load balancing equipment, etc, are the same.
Here once again we see the swift turn in the logical thoughts
of the chimpanzee at large.
First it's much more expensive the Linux way.
Then we see it's the same cost.
>That leaves the operating expenses, which you claim is less for Linux. Or is
>it? The monthly bandwidth, utility, and the rental costs are the same
>regardless of the OS. Salaries aren't much different either. One would need
>at least 3 people, preferably 6 for the 24/7 coverage, on staff to manage
>the web site. Remember, this isn't a mom & pop site where it does not matter
>if the site is accessible or not. Commercial web sites do have activity on
>their site and availability is critical. Not to mention the necessity for
>IDS and proper responses to intrusion attempts. Again, regardless of the OS
>the administration cost is the same. One could argue that it's easier and
>cheaper to have NT admins, than Linux admins, but we won't go there.
>The TCO has two component, installation and operating costs. From the above
>you can see, if you're not blind, that there is a difference in TCO between
>Linux and NT. For deploying a commercial web site Linux is more expensive
>than NT.
>
>Otto
>
And it will go on like this for litterally hours unless we
get this rubber tire mounted from the tree correctly to suit
him.
Anyone who believes this mindless pile of bullcrap deserves
to be run out of business on a rail.
Hope this helps!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 10 Dec 2000 05:24:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped)
>No...not anything.....it's a pointer out of bounds
Or hes using var's wrong? I did thats a few weeks ago, id been reading a BASIC
book (got bored) and while trying to write C code with var's i used the BASIC
type var's
ie somethin like this..
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int n;
printf ("Enter your name: ", $name)
printf ("Hello " $name);
}
Or something close to that type o thang, it complied and core dumped...
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 07:27:26 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2000 15:46:40 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:90tn0v$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.
> >
>
> Sorry to disappoint you but, your wrong.
>
> Netcrafts numbers are from live - interactive investigation of
> participating sites.
How do they do it?
I don't want the algorithm, I just want to read even a semi - flausible way
to do it.
> And they are not bogus. They have a method of determining fraud.
What method, how it is done?
> And the reason why Microsoft has no uptime is because nobody can
> keep their server running more than a month.
>
> Hope this helps.
It doesn't.
I can theorize FTL travel, and show some proof of it.
Can Netcraft do the same?
------------------------------
From: "The PhantomAss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HardcoreLinux.com domain name for sale
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 00:24:28 -0500
Hey there you little queer (Claire *AHEM*.) why don't you go back to
alt.faggots.whacking.off or your other favorite shithole?
Swangoremovemee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:22:00 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The big question is how many hits and how fast it returns them when
> searching:
>
> "Linux+Sux"
>
> Google has 100's of thousands of hits.
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 07:30:57 +0200
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90v297$lmu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <90v007$hd8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:90uu51$it4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <4oBY5.14744$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Internet that proof is not available, if someone would explain how
> > > Netcraft
> > > > conjures their figures an alternate study should be available.
> > >
> > >
> > > Alternative study:
> > >
> >
>
http://x76.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=5&AN=702846300.1&mhitnum=6&CONTE
> > X
> > > T=976374076.1878327313
> > >
> > > MS has no problem using Netcraft numbers as fact, Why do you?
> > >
> > > http://www.netcraft.com/news.html
> >
> > Nobody argues that Netcraft can post semi-reliable info about what
> type of
> > OS a server is running.
> > That is perfectly possible and well-understood.
> > What we argue against is the uptime info they present, how do they get
> it,
> > from where, by what means?
>
> That Netcraft as an Organization is REPUTABLE enough to be quoted by MS
> it's self! If MS, can quote from them SO CAN I!
No, because you are qouting two different things.
MS is qouting netcraft when it's talking about what *OS* the server is
running, I don't think that there is much arguement here, NEtcraft says how
they are doing it on the site, it's possible and well understood.
You are qouting netcraft when it's talking about what *uptime* the server
has, you've shown no a *single* proof of this being possible.
I don't want to hear about other people qouting Netcraft, I don't care about
it. I want to show you either write down *how* they do it, or point me to a
web page that tell me how they do it, or explain how it is possible to
extract Uptime info from a HTTP header.
I want nothing else.
Just an explanation or a reference.
In other words, put up, or shut up.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 10 Dec 2000 05:31:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
>or an IBM S/390 or AS/400.
GRRRRR BABBBYYYY!!!! Now *theres* some *sexy* iron! One fine day im gonna
*have* an S/390.. (or well, maybe not...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:31:53 GMT
On 9 Dec 2000 19:29:44 -0800,
Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
I don't know who started this thread but I think a
decent pair of glasses would probably help.
And motorists along the highway will appreciate
you for it also!
Hope this helps!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 10 Dec 2000 05:37:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Several items (Re: Nothing to say but, WOW)
>
>nope, had a look at what MSCE have to learn, what a bloody joke,
>compared to what is required in a "Certified Sun Microsystem Admin" or
>"Certified Novell Network Admin" Cert. the MSCE looks like they are
>catering for the lowest common denomiator, aka a uneducateed, pimply
>faced, teenager with a large chip on their sholder and an autographed
>picture of bill gates hanging on their wall in their "study".
HAHAHA IM ROLLIN!!! How true.. Actually me and my friend got bored and decided
to get our MSCE's (ahh the stupid things done in youth..) Im gonna start on it
soon (i hope)... Think about it for a sec.. I"LL BE CERTIFIED TO TELL PEOPLE
WINDOWS SUCKS DICK!!!!! YEAH~!
BTW, what the hell do i have to do?
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:38:30 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:43:19 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Most of the "best" computer guys I know do not have degrees. I do not
>put much stock in "degrees" so much as I put stock in people. When I see
>people using a degree as a status symbol, it simply means, to me, that
>they have no real love of what they had supposedly gone to school to
Yawwnn.... Sounds like you couldn't make the cut. SOrry to hear that.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:39:24 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> > But have you earned a degree?
> >
> > FWIW I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering from NY Polytechnic
> > University.
>
> Most of the "best" computer guys I know do not have degrees. I do not
> put much stock in "degrees" so much as I put stock in people. When I see
> people using a degree as a status symbol, it simply means, to me, that
> they have no real love of what they had supposedly gone to school to
> learn. A person that "loves" their pursuits and has the proper skills
> (regardless of education) are far far more valuable than someone that
> waives a piece of paper.
That's a lesson I learned when hiring people. Most of your time with college
grads is spent on re-educating them. Its' easier to hire raw talent and mold
it than it is to explain over and over again, "I don't care what you were
taught! This is the real world and this is the way it works!". An education
is good only for the basics.
I reflect back on my re-educators with sympathy..<g>
> CS guys with no passion about computers will never be very good.
> Mechanical engineers without passion will never design anything cool.
> EEs with no love of electronics will never create anything interesting.
>
> However, high school kids that love computers often come up with some
> really cool programs.
> Backyard mechanics often come up with novel approaches that have
> improved industries.
> More than one hardware hacker in a basement has created an HP or an
> Apple.
>
> Paper is meaningless. Dedication, aptitude, and a desire to improve ones
> self is the only way to be successful, in any field of endeavor. If
> obtaining a degree is part of that, great, but it is not always the
> case. Intelligent men understand this, small men do not.
Exhuberance, curiosity and raw ability are the most important things.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Ad
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:43:40 GMT
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 02:50:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Newspaper Ad
>
45k per year?
Do you like starving?
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
