Linux-Advocacy Digest #822, Volume #30 Tue, 12 Dec 00 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows review ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Uptimes ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("Jackal Jack")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:10:32 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9122tl$q31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > I only come up on that problem when looking through the system
folders.
> > > At that stage I use either the CLI or the search utility to display
the
> > > files I need to see.
> >
> > The folders aren't so much of a problem as the menus because you
> > can at least type one letter of a name to jump somewhere that might
> > be close (depending...).
>
> Why are the menus a problem?
How do you get 'close' to something in a menu, or temporarily
sort it to float the thing you want to the top?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: 11 Dec 2000 23:13:15 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UHxY5.4105$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "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.
And lets not forget that there are already 3 versions of the linux open
sourced uptime counter that you can make report ANY length of time you'd
like. AND when you initially fire up the client it asks you to simply type
in how long you've been up since the last reboot - nothing stops you from
typing "3 years" and it'll blindly report that. Uptimes.net is a joke.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: 11 Dec 2000 23:13:46 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:37:33 GMT,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:90rvcr$g4h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> It is time to look at predictions for the year past - 2000:
> >> This one's by Drestin Black:
> >> "Message-ID: <hrlL3.7102$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I'll argue with you there. I am willing to take a double or nothing bet
> >> from
> >> you, Windows 2000 will sell 2x more copies than the combined sales of
> >> Linux
> >> in 2000."
> >>
> >> Sadly enough, I think Dres wins this one. But if you look at it, it's
> >> kind of a wussy guess - I mean Win has 90% of the desktop market...
> >
> >Not really considering the main Penguinistas have been predicting for
> >awhile now that Linux growth will skyrocket, which it certainly hasn't
done.
> >
> >I bet if you look at the context of the predictions that Drestin made,
> >someone was claiming that no one will buy Win2K and that Linux will start
> >it's rise to domination, which certinaly hasn't happened in the least.
> >
> >-Chad
>
>
>
> W2k was Microsoft's worst seller yet.
Flat wrong. It's beaten EVERY single sales goal MS has set for it.
>
> And Linux actually has taken off here in the U.S.
As does the anti-ms dejour of the year OS - it'll pass... as the others
did..
> And Linux's popularity in non-us countries show's
> growth rates above 40% per year depending on
> country.
gee, a 40% increase in zambobwie from 10 to 14 copies - whopieee!
>
> Microsoft has made the most money from 95 and 98
> so far.
because it sold more copies pre-installed on systems - doh.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: 11 Dec 2000 23:13:59 -0600
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90ueqe$2e45d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Not exactly. The growrate (of Linux-users) is very hard to measure, since
> >it is a free operating-system and freely downloadable. There aren't any
> >registration-obligatories or alike (cfr Microsoft) so placing a number on
> >the growth is impossible. People can only _guess_ how many users there
> >are, and a _guess_ is always unreliable.
> >
>
>
> Add to that multiple installations from same CD - for example if a company
> sets up 30 dual-boot Win2k & Linux systems that is 30 copies of win2k sold
> and 1 copy of linux installed on 30 machines which if you only count sales
> makes win2k appear to be 30 times as popular in this company even if these
> machines spend most of their time booted into linux.
And lets not forget the millions of bootleg copies of Windows in every
variation. I think there are more bootleg CDs of Windows than there are CDs
of linux.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: 11 Dec 2000 23:14:11 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:40:41 -0500, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You'll find that the Linux (*internet surfing) desktop share is about
> > .003120. MS.* is about .9375222 as of October out of 554,519,878
> > samples. read/weep http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
>
> Why you think this is a good thing is what escapes a lot of us. I can't
> imagine it being a good thing to have one company control 93% of anything.
You need a better imagination...
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: 11 Dec 2000 23:14:23 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:40:41 -0500, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > You'll find that the Linux (*internet surfing) desktop share is about
> > > .003120. MS.* is about .9375222 as of October out of 554,519,878
> > > samples. read/weep http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
> >
> > Why you think this is a good thing is what escapes a lot of us. I can't
> > imagine it being a good thing to have one company control 93% of
anything.
> >
>
> I think we should eliminate Ford and Chrysler so that everybody
> has to buy an Oldsmobile
No one said anything about eliminating anyone. It's a simple reporting of
fact that MS browsers are in use on 93% of all systems versus only about 0%
for Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: 11 Dec 2000 23:14:29 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:40:41 -0500, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > You'll find that the Linux (*internet surfing) desktop share is about
> > > .003120. MS.* is about .9375222 as of October out of 554,519,878
> > > samples. read/weep http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
> >
> > Why you think this is a good thing is what escapes a lot of us. I can't
> > imagine it being a good thing to have one company control 93% of
anything.
> >
>
> We should get rid of GM, Ford, Chrysler, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Audi,
> Porsche, Mercedes, Volvo, Datsun, and make everybody drive AMC Pacers.
Wow - do you pout like this in public too?
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: 11 Dec 2000 23:15:28 -0600
"Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90rvcr$g4h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It is time to look at predictions for the year past - 2000:
> This one's by Drestin Black:
> "Message-ID: <hrlL3.7102$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'll argue with you there. I am willing to take a double or nothing bet
> from
> you, Windows 2000 will sell 2x more copies than the combined sales of
> Linux
> in 2000."
>
> Sadly enough, I think Dres wins this one. But if you look at it, it's
> kind of a wussy guess - I mean Win has 90% of the desktop market...
>
> 1 Prediction point for Dres, and 100 wuss points in the same direction!
> Get som hair on your chest Dres, and give us a real prediction!
I don't remember him making a wrong prediction yet - it helps that he
probably has enough stock in MS to call Bill's cell phone :) but fact of the
matter, he told it like it was.
Giving "wuss points" is just sour grapes.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:19:19 GMT
"Swangoremovemee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That doesn't mean anything. Apple can be just as much out in the
> > cold, as can be NT, if the vendor doesn't happen to think either
> > of those markets are large enough to support.
>
> It is Linux that is out in the cold because of it's lack of support
> for common hardware like USB.
>
> So Linux only supports certain USB devices?
>
> That's a good one.
Yes it is. It is just as good as saying an OS only supports certain
ISA devices or certain PCI devices or certain microchannel
devices or certain EISA devices, or certain parallel port
devices, or any other system where each device still needs
it's own specific driver.
> It amazes me how you people can not use all the features of the
> hardware you paid for and yet call Linux a superior operating system.
Why would people who prefer Linux buy unsupported hardware?
> Seems like Windows and Apple have gotten USB to work fine, what
> happened to Linux?
Windows 98 won't run a Kensington USB video camera on my
Toshiba laptop and I have to re-boot after trying it. There was
a rather famous blue-screen when Bill Gates tried to show off
the USB support in the win98 preview. Is there some reason
I should think these are atypical?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Jackal Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: no.alt.arkiv,tw.bbs.comp.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:05:49 +0800
I agree fully.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:911g5n$cr1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello to all!
>
> The result is out. Linux is INFERIOR to Windows. :-)
> Ah, I know you Linux people are bursting with rage right now. Sarcasms
> and insults are evitable for me, I know.
>
> Please read this test by Mindcraft that compares Linux and Windows NT.
> After reading this, you will agree with me.
>
> http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html
>
> Ha! Ha!
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:13:29 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snype>
>
>
> > And in the US, it's kind of like Washington's fight against the
British...
> >
> > years of defeats, culminating in total victory.
> >
> Question is, was Washingtons little tiff a total waste of time,
> considering, most of the English colonies gained their dominion status
> shortly after their colonisation (which would have happened, as
> maintaining America was becoming too expensive for the English economy
> to continue it's funding). Hypothetically speaking, had America been a
> good little colony and went with the flow, Slavery would have been
> banned 50 years prior to what today is known as the Civil War. I am not
> stirring any xenophobic feelings, just a quick thought :)
Had we done that we'd have become a nation of droll tea drinkers. Without
racial tensions, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would have to get real jobs.
White supremisist trailer trash would suddenly look silly when they wear
bedsheets and scream "White Power". If we didn't have the civil war, what
would the civl war re-enactors do? Become Zula War re-enactors?. It'd never
work. It'd be a bunch of white guys in funny hats shooting at imaginary
warriors because African Americans have a good enough sense of fashion not
to dress up in those silly outfits.
Most importantly, the English would have no-one to look down on.
Perish the thought!.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:16:00 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bob Hauck wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:40:41 -0500, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You'll find that the Linux (*internet surfing) desktop share is
about
> > > > .003120. MS.* is about .9375222 as of October out of 554,519,878
> > > > samples. read/weep http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
> > >
> > > Why you think this is a good thing is what escapes a lot of us. I
can't
> > > imagine it being a good thing to have one company control 93% of
> anything.
> > >
> >
> > We should get rid of GM, Ford, Chrysler, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Audi,
> > Porsche, Mercedes, Volvo, Datsun, and make everybody drive AMC Pacers.
>
> Pacers are only similar to Linux in one respect:
> Market Share
>
LOL
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:16:48 GMT
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
>
> > > We should get rid of GM, Ford, Chrysler, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Audi,
> > > Porsche, Mercedes, Volvo, Datsun, and make everybody drive AMC Pacers.
> >
> > Pacers are only similar to Linux in one respect:
> > Market Share
>
> True enough, but in terms of all other aspects, quality, power,
> reliability, they are a virtual twin of WinDOS.
>
They are actually quite similar to Linux. A kludge of spare parts bolted
together and sold cheap.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[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: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:20:57 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YFSY5.80$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
<trimmed>
> > I can agree with this also! They keep heading more and more
> > toward the UNIX way of doing things. I know they are not there
> > yet. I wonder if they will every MAKE IT?
>
> Their products remind me of those vending machines in Hitchhikers Guide to
> the Galaxy.
>
> "Almost entirely unlike UNIX" :)
>
Duh? Well it would be as it's based on VMS.
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Registered Linux User #194021
> http://counter.li.org
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:28:35 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:910mb5$pgb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <VAQY5.23264$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
>
>
> Define "correct server?" remember that netcraft clearly states that the
> server that is called by a URL may not be the reporing server. Claiming
> that the server called buy a URL is the "correct server" is not
> appropreate in the way that Netcraft has discribed the data. The
> "correct server" by the way Netcraft has discribed the data is the
> Computer that responded with the information. As such, Netcraft is
> always dealing with the "correct server"
>
In otherwords you cannot.
>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:24:37 GMT
In article <3a35733b$0$719$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:UHxY5.4105$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "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.
>
> And lets not forget that there are already 3 versions of the linux
open
> sourced uptime counter that you can make report ANY length of time
you'd
> like. AND when you initially fire up the client it asks you to simply
type
> in how long you've been up since the last reboot - nothing stops you
from
> typing "3 years" and it'll blindly report that. Uptimes.net is a joke.
Right Conrad, and the black helecopters are on the way, Right? Yeah
right, it's a joke, anything that casts any doubt on MS is a joke,
Right? It's called denial. And you have a bad case of it.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:32:35 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dtjZ5.1565$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:YFSY5.80$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> <trimmed>
> > > I can agree with this also! They keep heading more and more
> > > toward the UNIX way of doing things. I know they are not there
> > > yet. I wonder if they will every MAKE IT?
> >
> > Their products remind me of those vending machines in Hitchhikers Guide
to
> > the Galaxy.
> >
> > "Almost entirely unlike UNIX" :)
> >
>
> Duh? Well it would be as it's based on VMS.
Funny how most of the OSs I hate working with have the letters MS associated
with them....
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:33:04 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:910mjj$pk4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > >
> > > MS has no problem using Netcraft numbers as fact, Why do you?
> > >
> >
> > Because I'm not Microsoft.
>
>
> That's right, you are a nobody that posts only his opinion and NO
> SUPPORTING documemnt to a news group.
>
>
> Microsoft is a Dominate force in the industry (unlike you), CNN is a
> dominate force in it's industry (unlike you) and both of these Dominate
> forces (And you are NOT a dominate force) have indorsed Netcraft as a
> viable source of data. You have provided absolutely NO documentation to
> prove otherwise.
>
At least my newsreader has a spelling checker. When are you going to RPM
yours?
IAC, It isn't necessary for one to be a "Dominate" (Dominant Maybe) force in
the industry to know when someone is presenting a line of total bullshit. I
have never claimed to present anything beyond my opinion, an opinion that is
rather more informed than your own, obviously.
>
>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> 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: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:36:42 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:912q3f$b6d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <wFQY5.23275$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "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.
>
> His claim was about Linux, not Novell. May not be able to spell, but I
> can at least READ. You?
>
Quite well, since my customers are intelligent enough not to specify Linux I
had to provide another example. BTW his figure for a 100 Seat NT/Win2k
Network is more on the order of $3-4K, and the only way it would cost $10K
would be including some massive hardware costs. For instance the server and
ALL the workstations.
>
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> I have and part of the TCO is trouble shooting. If W2K is as unstable as
> BOTH netcraft and www.uptimes.net show, then the cost of trouble
> shooting W2K is much higher than the Unixes.
>
Proof please.
I mean some real world figures, because actual users of these platforms
disagree with you. BTW, trouble shooting isn't part of TCO but overall
support is.
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> 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
******************************
