Linux-Advocacy Digest #790, Volume #30 Sun, 10 Dec 00 15:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. (J.C.)
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Ad ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:38:54 GMT
In article <90v4fj$iji$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "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.
And you are not quoting anything.
I am quoting 2 different things, netcraft, an orginzation that is
considered reputable enough for MS and CNN among otheres to quote, and
Uptimes.net (that is clear on how it gets uptimes). BOTH show stats that
support the claim that W2k is unstable.
What are you quoting? NOTHING!
About using headers, PROVE THAT THAT IS THE WAY NETCRAFT DOES IT. THis
is what netcraft says about that:
"Netcraft determines the operating system of the queried host by looking
in detail at the network characteristics of the HTTP reply received from
the web site."
Not one thing about what was sent!
Nothing but whining.
By the way, Eric claims that he has figured out a way of doing it. He
does not want to post it here, I guess, because it shows it really can
be done.
The fact that you do not know how it is done PROVES NOTHING!
I have posted 2 different sources using 2 different methods BOTH show
shats that indicate W2K is not stable. Eric claims that he has figured
out how netcraft gets the Uptime and all you can do is cry `the numbers
are false because *I* do not know how it is done`. And just who are you
to claim that you know more than Netcraft (a company that MS trusts
enough to quote [have you ever been quoted by MS, CNN and PC magazine?])
AND discard the proof shown from a SECOND source that shows the same
thing: W2K is not stable. Then discard Eric's claim that he thinks he
has figured out how netcraft is getting the dates?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:54:53 GMT
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:01:48 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 06:57:51 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Uh huh. You're a NT/2k admin, I presume? How many hits/day do _you_
> >get?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Not that many
> >>
> >> Well, that's my fucking point. For a living, I admin high-traffic
boxes.
> >NT/2k
> >> just can't keep up with the load -- unix/clones can.
> >>
> >
> >Benchmarks seem to prove otherwise.
>
> It appears you've retreated into the same cosy little bunker as Ayende.
When you
> can't come up with anything, the super-duper comeback is to mumble
something
> about `benchmarks', as if benchmarks are going to keep NT/2k up, or as if
> benchmarks actually disprove my administrative experiences with NT/2k.
>
It is you penquinistas that have the bunker mentality. If I quote my own
experiences which differ greatly from yours you call me a liar, if I quote
benchmarks of note (TPC come to mind) you claim they aren't real world
examples. I will agree benchmarks don't keep any system up and running that
requires an adminstrator with a clue. I don't understand administrators who
blame an OS for their own inadequacies, much like a mechanic who's blames
his tools.
>
> >> > because business runs on more than a web server.
> >>
> >> So? First, my job description ventures far further than administrating
> >just webservers, I'm
> >> just using webserving as one (1) example of where NT/2k can't keep up.
In
> >any case, though, my
> >> point is, if NT/2k can't handle the stress of being a webserver, how is
it
> >going to handle an
> >> equal amount of _any_ activity, webserving-related or not?
> >>
> >
> >Then your question is moot.
>
> Really. Care to elaborate, or would you rather dodge the unconfortable
task
> of replying by mumbling something about my question being `moot'? The
latter,
> presumably...
>
So in your limited experience, your inability to configure a Windows system
to perform adequately or stabily is an indicator of poor software, anecdotal
evidence is too small a statistical universe.
>
> --
> J.C.
> "The free flow of information along data highways being piped into our
> homes and offices will permit unimaginable control by a small elite..."
>
> -- 'The Thunder of Justice', pg. 264
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:02:39 GMT
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90unt6$f7u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The developer edition of SQL server can do that on workstation.
>
> I stand corrected
>
> > NT and Win2K IIS is Peer Web Services
>
> Yes, that's what I said, PWS.
>
Excuse me I read Personal Web Server (MS Abbreviates that PWS, Peer Services
are referred to as IIS) though there is a major difference between Personal
Web Server and peer services.
> Adam Ruth
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:IjBY5.14727$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:90tl32$2ol0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Need or want to? Can't prototype on Win2K pro. Which server can't
you
> > > run?
> > > > Oracle maybe, but SQL server and IIS are both available on
workstation
> > and
> > > > can be used to prototype.
> > >
> > > SQL Server: The more advanced features, such as full text indexing
are
> > only
> > > available on the server version.
> > > IIS: The workstation version is actually PWS, quite different
> internally
> >
> >
> PWS is only
> > on Win9X on somewhere in between IIS
> > (Complete) and PWS.
> >
> >
> > > from the server version. If I'm developing, I don't want to develop
on
> a
> > > dumbed down version, I'd prefer the whole thing.
> > >
> >
> > So it comes down to want to rather than need to.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:05:10 GMT
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:910h4k$1na5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > PWS can also mean Personal Web Server, which is what is available for
> Win9x.
>
> Agreed, I was merely clarifying what I meant. I say PWS meaning any non
> true IIS version which includes Personal Web Server and Peer Web Services.
>
>
That would be inaccurate as Peer Web Services are far more capable than the
poor httpd that is personal web server. The Peer Web Services incarnation
of IIS includes almost all of the functionality of IIS including MTS. The
only missing parts are Certificate Services and some of the more esoteric
network configuration options.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.C.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 Dec 2000 06:07:57 +1100
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:54:53 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >Benchmarks seem to prove otherwise.
>>
>> It appears you've retreated into the same cosy little bunker as Ayende.
>When you
>> can't come up with anything, the super-duper comeback is to mumble
>something
>> about `benchmarks', as if benchmarks are going to keep NT/2k up, or as if
>> benchmarks actually disprove my administrative experiences with NT/2k.
>>
>
>It is you penquinistas that have the bunker mentality.
All of us?
If I quote my own
>experiences which differ greatly from yours you call me a liar, if I quote
>benchmarks of note (TPC come to mind) you claim they aren't real world
>examples.
TPC's results do not coincide with my experiences with NT/2k. Is that a problem
to you? Obviously, it is, and you can't come up with any better explanation
than a supposed lack of competence on my part.
> I will agree benchmarks don't keep any system up and running that
>requires an adminstrator with a clue.
... running a decent OS ...
I don't understand administrators who
>blame an OS for their own inadequacies, much like a mechanic who's blames
>his tools.
If the mechanic has shitty tools, then his complaints are justified...
[snip]
>> >Then your question is moot.
>>
>> Really. Care to elaborate, or would you rather dodge the unconfortable
>task
>> of replying by mumbling something about my question being `moot'? The
>latter,
>> presumably...
>>
>
>So in your limited experience, your inability to configure a Windows system
>to perform adequately or stabily is an indicator of poor software, anecdotal
>evidence is too small a statistical universe.
Now you've crawled into dc's bunker of accusing me for NT/2k's faults. According
to you, the reason why NT/2k sucks as a server platform is because of my
"inability to configure a Windows system".
And would you please care to elaborate upon why my first question is moot?
Sigh. At least I'm in good company...
--
J.C.
"The free flow of information along data highways being piped into our
homes and offices will permit unimaginable control by a small elite..."
-- 'The Thunder of Justice', pg. 264
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:09:30 GMT
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:910eer$1la3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sorry I misread your site referrence. I translated as I would reading
> > Matt's sloppy typing. Glad you agree about Netcraft's stats. You
> wouldn't
> > now how uptime gets their figures would you?
>
> I don't agree with you completely on Netcraft's numbers. I hoped my
> clarifying post would make that clear. I merely wanted to point out that
> you and sfcybear were talking about different numbers.
>
Thank you.
> I do agree that as we do not know how Netcraft get's their numbers one
> cannot make specific claim of veracity. But by the same token, since we
do
> not know how Netcraft get's their numbers one cannot make specific claims
> about their falsehood. It is, unfortunately, an unknown quantity.
>
This is the point that Matt doesn't seem to get. The unknown value should
not be used to validate any statistical model.
> I do know, however, how uptime get's their figures, so one can make claims
> of veracity. Their number are arrived at by individual system
> administrators running scripts on thier systems periodically that send
> uptime information to a central database. This would, of course, have
> several advantages over Netcraft:
>
> 1) Systems within a company, and not only front line web servers, can be
> monitored.
> 2) The method of gathering is a known quantity.
> 3) The method of gathering is accurate, in that the uptime numbers are
read
> directly, not derived by some as yet unknown algorithm.
>
> But uptime's method does have the following disadvantages.
>
> 1) They are open to fraud.
> 2) The survey is voluntary, and one must consider what type of people
would
> respond, and how this would affect the outcome
>
> This is true of any voluntary survey. All hope is not lost however.
There
> are standard statistical algorithms designed specifically to correct for
> such weaknesses, as surveys of one type or another have been analyzed for
> decades. Uptime.net, or anyone else for that matter, would do us all a
> great favor if they would apply these algorithms to their numbers. I
would
> certainly be interested.
>
Agreed, thus my point to Matt stands, the Data are specific and cannot be
applied in generalizations.
> In the end, I do not think it wise to completely discount the numbers of
> Netcraft or Uptime.net without specific claims of error. I do not think,
> also, that they can be taken as gospel. Sfcybear does make a good point,
> though: since these are, to date, the only numbers we have which aren't
> strictly anecdotal, they must be given some weight.
>
> I'm the one who started this thread and so far I see it as: one side has
> brought numbers to the table, and the other side has now to bring its own
> numbers or specifically refute the numbers already brought. Neither of
> which has yet to be done.
>
> Adam Ruth
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:12:53 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90utte$iqe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
<trimmed>
> > >
> > > Since it doesn't seem possible to garner that metric anonymously on
> the
> > > Internet that proof is not available, if someone would explain how
> > Netcraft
> > > conjures their figures an alternate study should be available.
> >
> > One place to start is by looking at accepted header definitions
> > http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/2068/155.htm
> >
> > Netcraft claims to derive uptime through info sent by a standard HEAD
> > request.
>
> This is what Netcraft actualy says:
>
> "Netcraft determines the operating system of the queried host by looking
> in detail at the network characteristics of the HTTP reply received from
> the web site."
>
> NOTHING ABOUT A STANDARD HEAD request.
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#os
>
> > I've compared Netcrafts reported uptime with uptime reported by some
> of the
> > servers at uptimes.net where there is actually a script installed on
> the
> > server that sends uptime info to a database and netcraft isn't even
> close to
> > matching!
>
> What is you proof that Netcraft is actually looking at the same server
> and not a proxy, Netcraft states clearly that an intermidiary server may
> be respondind and not the actual web server. Thus, the 2 servers giving
> the data may be different servers.
>
In that light what is your proof that Netcraft is reporting information
derived from the correct server?
> Here is what netcraft says:
>
> "The site is using a TCP connection-level proxy firewall, such as
> provided in the TIS Gauntlet, BorderWare, Raptor, CyberGuard or IBM
> SecureWay firewalls, or some other kind of HTTP level proxy. In these
> cases we will receive data from the intermediate machine rather than the
> web server, so detect the intermediate machine's operating system
>
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#os
>
> In every case they err on the side of under reporting uptime. With
> > this I say...Count ALL the uptime!!
>
> I Say that if you think I am wrong for quoting webcraft then MS is also
> wrong:
>
> http://www.netcraft.com/news.html
>
> If MS can use a Netcraft to prove their point, I can use Netcraft to
> prove MY point.
>
Rather moot since I, personally, always weight Netcraft numbers very lightly
regardless of who uses them.
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:13:23 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90uu51$it4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <4oBY5.14744$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Black Dragon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:30:03 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Chad C. Mulligan' said:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > : "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > : news:90thsf$ik4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > :
> > > : > > > > > 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.
> > > :
> > > :
> > > : >
> > > : > 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. 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Where can I find information on the Internet that *contradicts*
> Netcraft's
> > > numbers, that also explains how it was done?
> > >
> >
> > Since it doesn't seem possible to garner that metric anonymously on
> the
>
> Just because it seems impossible to you proves nothing. Please for once,
> provide some documented evidance of your claims.
>
> > 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?
>
Because I'm not Microsoft.
> http://www.netcraft.com/news.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Black Dragon
> > >
> > > Sign The Linux Driver Petition:
> > > http://www.libralinux.com/petition.english.html
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:17:48 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>
Find a different vendor, I just worked up a comparison for a sales proposal
to one of our customers for a 150 User two server network, the Windows quote
was almost $10K less than the equivilent Novell offering.
> 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.
>
Read up on TCO.
> 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: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:19:23 GMT
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, it definitely has the largest selection of text editors every
> > gathered in one place.
>
> Plus you don't have to worry about an OEM version of the OS preventing
> you from installing a given browser.
>
Neither do I. If there was one worth installing.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:06:19 GMT
In article <XWGY5.4142$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90uj4v$avq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Second source
> >
> > www.uptime.org
Did it from Memory
www.uptimes.net
>
> "Test page for the Apache Web Server on Red Hat Linux"
>
> > > The www.uptime.net is not a report, just a project in which people
can
> > > participate if they want to. The actual reporting is done over the
> > web,
> > > which in itself can render a participating server down if it isn't
> > reachable
> > > regardless if it's actually down or not. However, it does prove
you
> > dead
> > > wrong about the Windows OS. Check out the number 101 in the active
> > host
> > > section at the uptime site. It's a Windows98 machine with the
uptime
> > of 236
> > > days. Or how about number 11 with NT 4.0 OS having 658 days
uptime.
> >
> >
> > WOW 2 NT boxes in the top 100! I'm not imressed! And 1 98 box with
236
> > days! compare that with the number of Linux boxes in the top 100!
>
> Certainly disproves the statements that Win98 nor NT are incapable of
long
> uptimes though.
One or two that have made it for a long time proves nothing. Look at MS,
average what all of 17 days! Overall MS software is unstable.
http://x76.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=5&AN=702846300.1&mhitnum=6&CONTEXT=976374076.1878327313
Even if you attibute ALL to the uptime data from ALL the Microsoft OS's
to W2K, W2K has an uptime AVERAGE of 37 days! A little over 1/2 average
uptime of Linux.
>
> > even the boxes you have shown here are not appoaching this:
> >
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
>
> Interesting how when the survey began, there were a bunch of Linux
boxes.
> Now there are only 4, and those 4 will drop off within the next few
days due
> to the 497 day issue.
And not one NT box has ever been on the list because of a 49.7 uptime
issue! However, I also advocate ALL of the UNIX OS's (maybe not HP) and
the charts still show ALL Unix and NO W2K.
>
> In about 2 weeks, there won't be any Linux systems on the list.
>
> Oh, and Netcraft has changed their policy. Now they only monitor
sites for
> a few days, then will not monitor them again unless they are on the
most
> requested sites list. That means there will be literally millions of
sites
> out there that might have huge uptimes and will not show up in the
list
> simply because they're not the most requested.
and not one of the NT boxes could POSSIBLY be on the list because of the
poor desing of the Uptime timer.
>
> And btw, I've figured out how Netcraft discovers uptime. Just about
any
> firewall will totally invalidate the survey, giving the uptime of the
> firewall (if it supports it) rather than the web server. The only
sites
> that can be trusted are ones which are running TCP/IP stacks which are
known
> to give uptime hints in their tcp_time_stamp field and are not behind
a
> firewall of any kind.
? how does this invalidate any thing? netcraft only claims to report
what is returned when a URL is polled AND states clearly that this may
not be the actual web server. The OS and the uptime would still be
giving out acurate data.
W2K clearly DOES give the uptime information and that is the data I am
using.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Ad
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:14:36 GMT
Swangoremovemee,
I don't quite understand your response to my letter. To me it's as if
you read the few sentences of my letter and then stopped. The letter
contains over 13,000 characters, without including spaces, and is
broken up into 4 segments on the newsgroup. Perhaps you did read it
all, but from your response it I get the feeling that you did not.
Sincerely,
Jim Richards
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 02:50:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Newspaper Ad
> > >
> >
> > 45k per year?
>
> While an experienced developer *should* earn $70 - $150+, $45k is a
> legitimate entry level salary where they train you on how to do your
> job. Bear in mind, consultants should earn triple on their hourlies
> compared to what salaried employees make.
>
> I recently read a post on clc++ where a c++ programmer with 13 years
of
> experience is only earning $12 per hour in his region. I won't give
his
> name, but suffice to say, he is, in fact, a legitimate programmer who
> would be earning 6 figures if he lived in NoCal instead of Arizona.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
>
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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
