Linux-Advocacy Digest #877, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (Alan Baker)
Re: Whistler review. (Josiah Fizer)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Conclusion (sfcybear)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:26:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Quantum Leaper wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <PRVZ5.14004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad C.
>> > Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:45:08 -0500,
>> > >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> > ><trimmed>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Windows doesn't have this capability. They never have and they
>> > >> >> never will. They are slowly going the UNIX way, but they don't
>> > >> >> have this capability yet.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >.....being dragged, kicking and screaming....all the way...
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> And spell checked.
>> > >>
>> > >> No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
>> > >> They stole Windows from apple.
>> > >
>> > >Actually Apple stole it from Xerox.
>> >
>> > Four things:
>> >
>> > Apple was already working on these ideas and visiting Xerox was merely
>> > the spark that turned higher management on to the concept.
>> >
>> Amazing, considing Xerox got the idea from Doug Englebart when he as at
>> SRI
>> in the late 60s. So even Xerox didn't invent the idea of GUI.
>> Xerox 'stole' the idea from Doug
>> Apple paid 6 million, which isn't much considering it was in stock
>> options,
>> for the GUI from Xerox
>> MS got the idea from Apple.
>>
>> So everyone stole the idea from Doug, since he never got paid.
>
>Yup. And lots not forget Ethernet and the Laserprinter, both of which came
>from
>PARC (cant recall the people behind them, but I know they didn't make any
>money
>off of it).
You know that do you.
Bob Metcalfe: inventor of Ethernet and founder of 3Com
<http://www.digitalcentury.com/encyclo/update/metcalfe.html>
Or look up "inventor of ethernet" in any search engine.
John Warnock and Dr. Charles Geschke: inventors of Postscript and
founders of Adobe.
<http://www.usc.edu/isd/publications/networker/95-96/Mar_Apr_96/innerview
.warnock.html>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:32:43 -0800
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Quantum Leaper wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > In article <PRVZ5.14004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad C.
> >> > Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:45:08 -0500,
> >> > >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >> > ><trimmed>
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Windows doesn't have this capability. They never have and they
> >> > >> >> never will. They are slowly going the UNIX way, but they don't
> >> > >> >> have this capability yet.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >.....being dragged, kicking and screaming....all the way...
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> And spell checked.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
> >> > >> They stole Windows from apple.
> >> > >
> >> > >Actually Apple stole it from Xerox.
> >> >
> >> > Four things:
> >> >
> >> > Apple was already working on these ideas and visiting Xerox was merely
> >> > the spark that turned higher management on to the concept.
> >> >
> >> Amazing, considing Xerox got the idea from Doug Englebart when he as at
> >> SRI
> >> in the late 60s. So even Xerox didn't invent the idea of GUI.
> >> Xerox 'stole' the idea from Doug
> >> Apple paid 6 million, which isn't much considering it was in stock
> >> options,
> >> for the GUI from Xerox
> >> MS got the idea from Apple.
> >>
> >> So everyone stole the idea from Doug, since he never got paid.
> >
> >Yup. And lots not forget Ethernet and the Laserprinter, both of which came
> >from
> >PARC (cant recall the people behind them, but I know they didn't make any
> >money
> >off of it).
>
> You know that do you.
>
> Bob Metcalfe: inventor of Ethernet and founder of 3Com
>
> <http://www.digitalcentury.com/encyclo/update/metcalfe.html>
>
> Or look up "inventor of ethernet" in any search engine.
>
> John Warnock and Dr. Charles Geschke: inventors of Postscript and
> founders of Adobe.
>
> <http://www.usc.edu/isd/publications/networker/95-96/Mar_Apr_96/innerview
> .warnock.html>
>
And? Do they get any money from sales of ethernet or postscript devices? in other
words, if I buy an Intel enthernet card, is Bob getting a cut? I didn't say they
made no money of the knowledge they gained, but rather that they made no money
from the technology they devloped that xerox then made public.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:59:47 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8X1_5.164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say there is anything mnemonic about
> >> control. Try comprehending what I actually wrote.
>
> > You have to write something logical before I can do that.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't already written something
> logical.
No, you are incorrectly speculating that I am presupposing.
> >>> If something were really intuitive, you wouldn't need a mnemonic
anyway.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they were intuitive.
>
> > Why did you bring them up,
>
> Because you brought up the matter of moving the screen, claiming that
> you use hjkl to do that. Yet those move the cursor, not necessarily
> the screen. The keys I mentioned do move the screen, unless at one
> extreme, of course (which also applies to hjkl).
No, those move the cursor as well but the screen moves as a direct
result with both. Both accept an appropriate numeric count so I
fail to see any real difference in this context except the finer-grained
control that you have with jk, which is why I mentioned moving
a line up, something likely to be impossible with the other choices.
> > if not to oppose them against jk which you earlier said were not
> > intuitive.
>
> I said they were not intuitive for cursor movement. Get it right.
Do you mean in an absolute sense or compared to some other
keyboard character?
> >>> Besides, those don't do the same thing.
>
> >> They let you see the surrounding text, if not already visible. Note
> >> that your "move the screen a line one way or the other" in incorrect
> >> for at least one direction, possibly both. The hjkl keys move the
> >> cursor, which won't necessarily move the screen.
>
> > Did you forget already that they take an optional 'count' prefix? You
> > should have learned the form first, then the content as you need it.
>
> Wonderful; now you're talking three keystrokes instead of one. (Yes,
> I am presupposing more than 9 lines of movement, because screens tend
> to be more than that.) So much for the touted speed.
Unless you are positioned in one particular spot, you won't be able
to meet the specification of moving a line. So much for your ability
to do it at all.
> >>> I read it. Giving commands to a document viewer is exactly the
> >>> same as giving commands to an editor.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that what was brought up was the viewing of a
> >> document, not the giving of commands to a document viewer.
>
> > Can you repeat that a little slower?
>
> I r r e l e v a n t , g i v e n t h a t w h a t w a s
> b r o u g h t u p w a s t h e v i e w i n g o f a
> d o c u m e n t , n o t t h e g i v i n g o f
> c o m m a n d s t o a d o c u m e n t v i e w e r .
Oh, then you are just mistaken. The point of bringing
up the viewer was to discuss the command set.
> > I don't understand why you think the control of an action is
> > unrelated to the action, or why it would be irrelevant in the
> > context of a discussion about controlling commands.
>
> I don't understand why you think the viewing of a document is the
> same as editing a document.
Because it is. I may or may not choose to modify the document
when editing, but I don't do it blindly - at least when using
an interactive screen editor as we are discussing.
> > What is intuitive depends on prior experience,
>
> With comparable things, not the same thing. Brushing your teeth in
> the morning is no longer intuitive, if it ever was.
Perhaps it isn't for you.
> > and you keep telling me that people haven't had any of the relevant
> > experiences.
>
> And I keep asking you how many other editors use hjkl for cursor
> movement. If you answer "zero", then there wouldn't be previous
> experience with those keys for cursor movement in an editor. If
> you don't answer "zero", give me the name of the editor. So far,
> nobody has done that.
Elvis, vim, vile, emacs in viper-mode, emacs in vip-mode. You
seem to miss the point that innovation happens somewhere and
starts a new set of things that will be intuitive when you encounter
the less-innovative clones later. Vi may have been the innovator,
or perhaps the author had experience with something similar. After
the fact it doesn't make much difference.
> >> Incorrect; when editing a document, you need to insert and remove
> >> text, whereas you don't need those when viewing a document, thus
> >> the features are not the same.
>
> > An editor may or may not make modifications to a document.
>
> If you don't need to make modifications, you don't need to use an
> editor.
How do you propose that I should make that decision before
viewing the existing contents?
> > Thus it is incorrect to say that those features are always needed
> > or used.
> They are needed to do editing. Nothing incorrect about that.
They may or may not be. Thus it is incorrect to say 'always'. The
contents of the document may turn out to be just fine without
modifications.
> > There are other differences beyond the control keystrokes. For example
> > you can run vi in 'read only' mode by invoking it as 'vi -r' file or
using
> > the name 'view'.
>
> Thus not "very much the same".
Identical, in fact.
> > However, it will still copy the original into a working copy before
> > you start and is thus a less efficient thing to do than running
> > 'more' or 'less' especially on a large file. Also, vi does not work
> > to view the contents from a pipe.
>
> I've had vi croak on sufficiently large files. I've also had it
> croak on files with sufficiently long lines.
Yes, like the 640k memory limit and the 32Meg disk limit imposed
later by later popular software, vi's arbitrary size limits turned
out to be inappropriate for some current operations. Clones like
vim and emacs viper-mode provide a work-around, but if you
are just viewing and want to avoid the copy and size issues, less
is better.
> >>> That would be a good reason for chosing it, wouldn't it?
>
> >> That would be a good reason for not calling it "intuitive".
>
> > Wrong.
>
> If I own an Acme 1000, learn how to operate it, and then encounter
> an Acme 1000 in some other setting, say a hotel room, for example,
> knowing how to operate that Acme 1000 in the hotel room does not
> come from intuition.
What if it is the 'new, improved 1001' model or a competitor's version
with a dozen new features that you don't understand or need - yet you
can still operate it with the 1000's methods?
> > If you re-use something previously encountered it is intuitive.
>
> And I keep asking you how many other editors use hjkl for cursor
> movement. If you answer "zero", then there wouldn't be previous
> experience with those keys for cursor movement in an editor. If
> you don't answer "zero", give me the name of the editor. So far,
> nobody has done that.
Nobody realized you were incapable of finding facts for yourself.
The answer is not zero.
> >> I suggest you consult a more complete dictionary. Or do you wish
> >> to argue that brushing your teeth is intuitive?
>
> > Repeating the same task doesn't require intuition, but if your teeth all
> > fell out and you grew a new set it would be intuitive to brush those
> > instead.
>
> Wrong, given that it's repeating the same task.
No it isn't, until the 2nd time you do it.
> > Some dictionaries have an alternate meaning as a synonym
> > to 'instinctive', but people don't really have instinctive behaviour
> > (although today I'd like to fly south for the winter).
>
> In some instances, the synonym might apply. Brushing teeth isn't one
> of them.
Not for people.
> > Is that the only way you can learn?
>
> Consulting a reference, whether it be a written manual, a web site, a
> summary card, or a system administrator, makes the task non intuitive.
What if someone tells you it is 'just like' some other task you
have already mastered?
> >> So, does that strengthen or weaken the argument that they are not
> >> intuitive?
>
> > There is no such argument.
>
> Then exactly what have you been arguing about, if not that?
That the reuse of the orthogonal commands within the preset
pattern is intuitive. That is, the fact that the same commands
are re-used within vi in ways that are indendent of the context
makes them intuitive as you construct different combinations.
If you know what 'k' does and the nature of the pattern, you
automatically know what 10k does, and as soon as you
know what 'd' does, you know what 10dk does.
> > Any choice of keys is an arbitrary thing.
>
> Using the 'h' key to enter an 'h' into a document doesn't seem all
> that arbitrary to me, though in principal you could redefine the
> keyboard to do pretty much anything, if you like.
How much are you willing to stake on that wild speculation? If
you were in front of a keyboard controlling a nuclear missile
and wanted to start a document with the letter 'h', would you
hit the 'h' key without knowing anything else?
> > The part that is intuitive is that you only need to learn the form
> > of: {optional count} {command} {range/motion} once and you can
> > repeat the pattern in many subsequent ways.
>
> Do you not sense an inconsistency here? "The part that is intuitive
> is...to learn"?
Not at all. People do not have an instinctive nature, so intuitive
things are re-use of previously learned knowledge. Learning
the pattern allows you to re-use commands in different ways
without having to learn those other ways ahead of time, hence
those uses are intuitive.
> >>> Alt? What's an Alt?
>
> >> It's something I learned that vi doesn't let me re-use, contrary
> >> to your claim.
>
> > If you want to use it, map it.
>
> Something else to learn, and it presupposes that it's possible to do.
You are presupposing the existance of an alt key. I suggest
that that vendor providing the alt key should also provide
a vi configured to use it.
> > But vi was around first and is hardly responsible for your choices.
>
> Fortunately, I had more choices when I first needed to use an editor.
How does that relate to being fortunate?
> > It is not irrelevant in a discussion of the vi command set.
>
> Feel free to explain the relevance of an Alt in 1976 in a discussion
> of the vi command set.
There is nothing to discuss about something that doesn't exist.
> > The set could not contain futuristic magic keys unknown at the time.
>
> You mean like Control? Imagine that, a "futuristic magic key".
Control keys not only existed, but the values they generate in
combination with the alphabetic keys were standardized at
the same time as the letters themselves.
> > No, my concept of logic is hopelessly tied to the idea of a
> > cause preceeding the effect.
>
> And what caused me to learn an editor that used Alt keys, the
> effect being that the operation of vi was not intuitive?
Lack of guidence.
> > Most vendors would supply vi with any obvious keys on their
> > specific keyboard already mapped to the appropriate thing.
>
> Tell me, what did DEC do with their "Compose Character" key in vi?
I never had one of those. You'll have to ask someone who did.
> >>>>>> You mean the $ never means the dollar sign?
>
> What happened to the text that use to be here?
It was irrelevant.
> > The intuitive part is that it defines a motion and may be used
> > in that position like any other motion. The command part
> > is arbitrary.
>
> Is that your notion of intuition? If I learn that the form of a
> Fortran DO loop ends with start, stop, and step values, and if my
> first use involves a step value of 1, does that mean a subsequent
> usage where the step value is 2 was "intuitive"? No! The *form*
> of the statement has been *learned*.
Yes, you re-use previously learned knowledge in a new way without
having to learn it again. However, reasoning is usually involved
in a programming loop where it may not be required for your finger
motions as you type edit commands.
> >> The problem is knowing what to use. Just because someone learns
> >> what symbol to use for "end of line" doesn't mean they will
> >> automatically know what to use for "end of file".
>
> > I don't see the problem here.
>
> Reread what I wrote.
Why, has it changed?
> > Are you suggesting that they would know if some other symbol had
> > arbitrarily been chosen for one or the other?
>
> I'm suggesting that they would not necessarily know that the same
> symbol had been overloaded.
Does that relate in some way to what either of us said? If they
would not automatically be able to know a different symbol
how is it better than using only one?
> > If not, what is your point?
>
> See above.
It is still the same unrelated text.
> > Isn't that exactly the reasoning behind the Mac's 1-button mouse?
> > Some people manage to work with it.
>
> And it wasn't intuitive. Why do you think two- and three-button mice
> became so popular? Why didn't others follow the Mac's lead, if that
> design was so intuitive?
Of course it isn't intuitive because it doesn't repeat previously learned
knowledge. It is difficult or impossible to combine innovation with
intutive use.
> >>> Yes, you don't have to reason or look it up. You re-use the previous
> >>> learning, making the process intuitive.
>
> >> Are you trying to suggest that learning doesn't involve any reasoning?
>
> > Yes, they are different things. You can learn facts without doing
> > any reasoning.
>
> That's memorization. Not what I call learning. When I expect my
> students to learn something, I do not expect them to simply memorize
> some facts.
Then you are calling learning the wrong thing. You can only
learn facts, and intuitive things let you re-use those previously
learned facts without reasoning. You are talking about thinking
or reasoning instead.
> > The reverse would be more difficult but I wouldn't
> > go so far as to speculate that it is impossible.
>
> Reasoning is often used to determine facts. Galileo observed the
> phases of Venus and reasoned that it had to orbit the Sun.
Reasoning has nothing to do with facts although they may sometimes
coincide - but so rarely that it becomes a historical event. Innumerable
other people reasoned other, different possibilities that were not facts.
> >>>> That there might be different levels of escape is also not intuitive.
>
> >>> It was to me,
>
> >> Why?
>
> > As always, similar prior experience.
>
> Similar prior experience with what?
With characters that had special actions associated unless they
were put in a special context to negate their special nature.
A nicely visible example is documenting the codes used in
an 'embedded code' text formatter - or more currently, the
encoding used to allow the special characters in html or xml
markup to be included in the represented values. Contrast
these with what happens when you hit control-C in an
OS that uses that value as a program termination signal and
you see the different levels and should understand that the
levels might be nested arbitrarily deeply.
> >> The first time I plugged in a microwave oven, I didn't need to consult
> >> the manual. The power cord was intuitive.
>
> > Because it was similar to power cords in your prior experience.
>
> So, you agree with me that a power cord can be intuitive. Great. Go
> argue with Aaron, if you can tolerate his invective.
'Can be' applies to almost everything. It will depend on your prior
experience vs. the innovation in the thing in question.
> > I recall inserting a knife into a power outlet at an early age. It
> > wasn't at all intuitive what the holes were for.
>
> And if somebody showed you a plug and a socket, then called them male
> and female without telling you which is which, would you find that an
> intuitive used of terminology? Perhaps not "at an early age". Once
> again, intuition is not an absolute.
I would hope that most people would encounter the terms in
another context before the one that might be intuitive in
the sense of instinctive.
> >>>> The average user isn't going to know about tty input subsystems.
>
> >>> I did. It is no more obscure than knowing the name of msconfig.
>
> >> Are you arguing that msconfig is intuitive?
>
> > No, I am arguing that people have prior experience with slightly
> > obscure things, often making them candidates for intuitive reuse.
>
> Do some of those "obscure things" involve a computer?
For many people, probably approaching or past a majority in the US at
least.
> >>>> The average user isn't going to know about signals at the OS level.
>
> >>> Unix users do,
>
> >> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
> > All of them I know do.
>
> What fraction of the userbase do you know?
Enough.
> > Since so many programs read standard input if not given some filenames
> > on the command line, most people would still be waiting for cat or grep
> > to complete if they didn't know about ^D or ^C.
>
> That presupposes some knowledge of a connection between ^D and signals.
> Some people know what to do without knowing the jargon involved.
Yes, that's why people consider it intuitive.
> > Yes, believe it or not, people learn what helps them do something
> > better/faster/easier.
>
> That doesn't prove they know everything practical.
I didn't say they did. There is no license exam with a demand
for some specifiec minimal amount of knowledge.
> >>> For example using control-Z for job control to put things in the
> >>> background and yank them back for keyboard control without needing
> >>> extra windows is very handy.
>
> >> And every UNIX user knows that? That makes it intuitive? And
> >> control-Z won't yank them back. You need "fg" for that.
>
> > But earlier you said people wouldn't know that...
>
> I don't expect someone to know something that isn't the case.
Isn't it? How do you suspend your current job when you want
to bring another to the forground? Or did you not do something
usefull after backgrounding the previous one?
> > The intuitive part here is when you reuse the pattern of escaping the
> > special character for the times you need to use it as a normal
character.
>
> On the contrary, tell that to the novice (the "escaping the special
> character" part), and see how many press the Esc key first.
Yes, you can tell a novice to type 'run', spelling it for him
and see him type 'are you in'. That is cute but equally
irrelevant. There are innumerable ways to mislead a novice.
> >>> Or, that it will be the first time you encounter the concept and hence
> >>> you should learn the thing that will make the next encounter
intuitive.
>
> >> Subsequent encounters of the same thing are not intuitive.
>
> > I don't share that opinion.
>
> On what basis do you call it an opinion? If I own an Acme 1000, learn
> how to operate it, and then encounter an Acme 1000 in some other setting,
> say a hotel room, for example, knowing how to operate that Acme 1000 in
> the hotel room does not come from intuition. That's not an opinion.
Things are never the same. If you have to apply reasoning to deal
with the differences it is not intuitive. If you don't, it is.
> >>> On the contrary - it applies to re-using experience without having
> >>> to reason.
>
> >> So, you *are* going to argue that brushing your teeth is intuitive,
> >> right?
>
> > If it is your second set of teeth, yes.
>
> "Repeating the same task doesn't require intuition"
> --Les Mikesell
It isn't the same task if it isn't the same teeth. How did you
decide you should even brush the new one at all?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:53:24 GMT
In article <91aq21$6pl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After all of the bickering over the last week, I've come to my
conclusions:
>
> 1) There is no real good study of uptimes. And by that I mean a
serious,
> possibly double-blind, study of the stability of operating systems
over the
> long term. To do this would require setting up a bunch of servers on
> identical hardware, hitting them with equal loads, and then then
recording
> the results. It would need to be done in a lab somewhere and would
probably
> take 12 months to get good data.
In a lab is different from production. It is to easy to slant the test
to one side or the other.
>
> 2) There are two sources, Netcraft and Uptime.net, that have survey
> results. Each one works differently, one is voluntary the other is
not.
> While these numbers aren't as good as a study like I mentioned above,
they
> do have some validity. The fact that their numbers corroborate each
other
> points to their validity. The problems with Netcraft can easily be
filtered
> out, as can the problems with uptime.net. While the numbers aren't
> surgically accurate, they do give one a good baseline, and they also
work
> well in a relative sense (meaning that we can see that "os a" is x%
more
> stable than "os b", within the limited bounds of the survey).
>
> 3) The most important factor of all is my own experience. No matter
how
> stable an operating system is, if it's not stable with my mix of
> applications, hardware, usage, and most importantly skillset, then its
> stability is irrelevant.
>
> 4) Uptime isn't as important as availability, and that is much more
> difficult to measure.
>
> Thanks for an enlightening debate.
>
> Adam Ruth
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90pm13$2pvo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Where can I find some hard numbers about the best and mena uptimes
of NT
> and
> > Linux? I have my own experience, which I'm sure varies from
others. I
> have
> > Netcraft numbers which don't show NT 4 and W2K hasn't been around
long
> > enough fro some good numbers.
> >
> > I keep seeing this debate and they always end up with someone
saying, "My
> > machine has been up for x months!". Which someone promptly replies,
> > "B.S.!". So has there been any research in this area?
> >
> > Adam Ruth
> >
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
