Linux-Advocacy Digest #930, Volume #30 Sat, 16 Dec 00 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Why use malloc? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why use malloc? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Conclusion ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Conclusion ("Adam Ruth")
Re: I concede (Windows back on my machine) (Donn Miller)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... (Donn Miller)
Re: Corel to pull out of Linux ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Uptimes (Bob Hauck)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 16:43:43 GMT
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:10:37 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux does not use such technology. It has "Modules". Core components that
>can be loaded to, but not removed from, or changed dynamicly. The module
Say what? Modules can so be removed, as long as nothing is using them.
There's even support for automatic loading and unloading of modules as
devices are accessed and idled.
>can be loaded, fine. UNLOAD it. Can you? Maybe. It may be a critical
>interface module, so forget it. Update it. Can you? No. Didn't get the
>"module" needed from the install of your Linux? Can you download THE
>MODULE? Maybe, can you use it instantly? NO.
What _are_ you trying to say? This is so confused that I'm really
having a hard time following it.
I _think_ that your points are:
1. You can't unload modules that are in use.
2. Modules have to match the kernel version in use.
Both of which are so obvious that I can't figure out how you think W2K
does it differently. W2K/NT won't let you unload a driver that's in use
either. For instance, yesterday I tried to unload the driver for my CD
because it was acting up. Thought I, "just reload the driver to reset
things", but it wouldn't let me do that. Actually, NT won't let me
unload most drivers. Perhaps W2K is better.
As far as the kernel version, it is true that the Linux developers don't
worry too much about keeping the driver binary interface the same
between patch levels. But then, most drivers come as source code so
that isn't really too big a deal. Having drivers as source is a good
thing you know. It helps prevent planned obsolescence.
MS seems to change their driver interface with every major release too.
They are a bit better about not changing it via hotfixes, but even so
there are problems with drivers that only work if you have a certain SP
level installed. So maybe W2K is somewhat better if you have some sort
of religious reason to avoid typing "make" or reading two paragraphs of
instructions. They don't have inherently superior technology.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 16:43:44 GMT
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:41:04 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>Why on earth would any home PC user own a SCSI hard disk drive?
I have one because the IDE drive failed and I had a spare SCSI card and
disk that were removed from a server I upgraded. So now the machine is
SCSI. Did I do it wrong? Linux installed just fine, no complaints.
>> And, no, don't ask me how to check data integrity under Windows . . .
>> there don't seem to be any tools for this, unlike Linux . . . md5sums,
>> and all that, do not seem to be standard tools on Windows boxen.
>
>Windows NT & 2000 (and NTFS) all feature data integrety tools. NTFS uses
>it's three MFT's to verify the data integrety of data written to, in real
>time, and read from (again, realtime).
I don't think you understand what he's talking about. Linux includes
tools to checksum files to verify that they haven't been changed. They
may have been changed on purpose, by a cracker say, and have perfect
integrity filesystem-wise but are different from what they are supposed
to be.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 16 Dec 2000 17:03:24 GMT
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 02:58:10 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>The difference is, W. didn't lie, didn't mislead, merely stated the
>facts to let the people draw their own conclusions. Most of what W.
The Bush campaign ran an add that made false claims about McCains
environmental record, and the ad was pulled shortly after it was aired.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:02:42 -0700
That's when you buy a second machine and put it in another country.
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:INw_5.7211$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91e2jc$2i7u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Any box with 256 processors is not going to have a "single point of
> > failure". You think the designers of the behemoths only put in 1 disk
> > drive, 1 power supply, 1 network card, or 1 of anything? Every
component
> in
> > these boxes has redundency. The redundant components have reduncency
> within
> > them. There is no single piece of hardware that when fails brings the
> whole
> > box down. It's called engineering.
>
> Except for acts of god. ie. Airplane crashes into data center,
earthquake,
> Power loss (most places only have a single power vendor, thus if that
vendor
> has a major problem, they lose all power.), Tornado, Hurricane, Alien
Attack
> ;)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why use malloc?
Date: 16 Dec 2000 17:11:08 GMT
On 15 Dec 2000 20:00:12 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>That is how you must allocate memory dynamically; just try not to do
>it over and over again (ie, don't malloc() and free() in some
>frequently called subroutine; keep the information in a static pointer
>or somesuch). The fastest is to have the compiler ready it for you by
>requesting a large array.
There's a very simple rule that one can use when deciding whether dynamic
allocation is needed -- ask yourself this:
"Do I know how much memory I will need, or will I not know until run time" ?
If you know how much memory you will need before compiling the program,
or you are willing to place a hard limit on the amount of memory you
will use, then you clearly do not need dynamic allocation.
Otherwise, you clearly do.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why use malloc?
Date: 16 Dec 2000 17:13:39 GMT
On 15 Dec 2000 14:58:05 -0700, Aaron Ginn wrote:
>Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This indicates that malloc does not zero out the memory block being
>> > allocated for use while calloc does. Is this correct? Also, calloc
>> > has the advantage of being able to allocate as many blocks as required
>> > while malloc is limited to one block per call.
>>
>> malloc() is faster than calloc()
>>
>> Avoid both like the plauge as much as possible, because they are slow
>> (and the only reason to code in C anymore is for raw speed).
>
>So what other options exist in C for allocating memory dynamically? I
I think the point is don't use dynamic allocation unless you have to.
Which should be obvious.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:11:55 -0700
I'm and MCP, MSCE+I, MCSD. I've worked with WinNT since 3.1 beta, but only
as a programmer. Not till NT4 did I do any sys admin work, but, I never was
a sys admin by choice, I'm really a programmer. Every small company I've
worked for I've been the sys admin by default. With no one else to pass the
buck to, the systems were mine to keep up. When I was with larger
corporations (such as a large bank where I worked on their Y2K project), I
was involved only with the sys admin of my development machines, the
production machines were for the most part out of my control.
This does, I'll admit, put a psychological barrier between me and good
uptimes with anything (not just NT), I don't like the sys admin stuff, I
just want to program. That's why it's so instructive that Unix I can keep
up with no effort (I've only ever set up 2 production Linux servers, and
about 3 or 4 development servers, they all work like champs), but it takes
all kinds of black magic and incantations to keep Windows up for any
remotely long period. I just don't have the desire, as I mentioned above,
to do it. Every time someone tells me that they can keep Windows up, and
then tells me how, I'm amazed that they have any time remaining in their day
for anything else. It's just not worth it for me... too much work.
That is why I use Linux. It's the OS for sys admins who don't want to be
sys admins.
Adam Ruth
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3ow_5.7209$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91buii$10qg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Let me make it more clear:
> >
> > The most important factor IN DETERMINING STABILITY is my own experience.
> In
> > other words: Regardless of what any tests, benchmarks, etc say, my own
> > experience with the systems matters more. Some bonehead on a newsgroup
> can
> > tell me that they have been able to keep WinNT running for 3 years
> straight.
> > Well, my own experience doesn't bear that out, and that sure matters
much
> > more than what may or may not have happened in some IT shop somewhere.
> >
> > I trust my experience, everything else serves only as a guide.
>
> What exactly *IS* your experience in attempting to maintain a high
> availability NT system?
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:28:51 -0700
I never claimed they where "scientific" (whatever that means, there aren't
very many words abused more than this one). Of course there are better
surveys, and better methods, this is not in doubt (when Nielsen conducts an
uptime survey, then perhaps that should satisfy more people). But we only
have these two sets of numbers, and they are not totally random. These
numbers were not pulled out of someone's hat. To completely discount them
is foolish, they do have some weight. Not perfect, I agree, but they are
instructive. What I did claim is that they identified trends.
So let's look at the trends:
>> Unix trends toward being more stable than Windows.
> No, Unix admins tend to know their system better than Windows
administrators.
> To even get basic things done in Unix, you have to have a much higher
level
> of computer knowledge to get basic things done in Windows. Setting up a
> DHCP server would be a basic example.
This statement clearly implies that one reason Netcraft numbers for Windows
are lower is because Windows sys admins, as a whole, are less experienced
than Unix sys admins. But at the same time, Unix requires more work and
knowledge than an equivalent Unix system. Okay, let's go with that
assumption. It can mean one of three things:
1) Windows attracts poor quality sys admins.
2) Unix forces a sys admin to be high quality, and makes Windows sys
admin's lazy.
3) There are many more Windows boxes out there, and it's harder to get good
Windows people because of shortages of talent.
There may be more, I'm sure I'll think of one more 10 seconds after I post
this message.
Anyway, those are three trends that can be identified from Netcraft numbers,
based on the assumption that I inferred from your statement.
Those trends tell me one thing: Don't use Windows. If I will have a harder
time hiring a quality Windows sys admin than a Unix sys admin, shouldn't
that be a consideration of mine?
Now, of course, I expect you to have a different interpretation, and I'll be
glad to listen to it.
Adam Ruth
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I concede (Windows back on my machine)
Date: 16 Dec 2000 11:36:18 -0600
Adam Hawton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not use one of the VM (virtual machine) software packages now
> available, e.g. VMWare (www.vmware.com), Win4Lin (www.netraverse.com) or
> Plex86 (www.plex86.org), to run Windows WITHIN Linux - that way you'll only
> have to dual-boot for some games and a few bits of direct hardware-related
> software - other stuff, even things like Visual Studio, SQL Server, Office
> 2000, will run ok. You can still run in your favourite Linux OS whilst
> using Windows.
Also, I believe you can now do Windows cross-development under Linux or
FreeBSD with gcc. I think gcc has a cygwin-32 option when running configure.
This enables you to produce Windows executables under Linux. That kinda
rules.
Also, libwine is another possibility, but it helps if your Win compiler is
gcc/Cygwin for easy porting. But I think it's a great idea, using a VM to run
Windows simultaneously under Linux. I remember how I used to reboot back and
forth for simple things. Virtual machines rule. I don't think plex86 has
been ported to FreeBSD yet, though.
-Donn
====== 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: Donn Miller <dmmillerzoominternet.net>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: 16 Dec 2000 11:38:29 -0600
. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Microsoft does not make or design mice, they were (at the time that
> the scrollwheel was introduced) repackaged logitech mice, designed
> by logitech engineers. :)
I don't know if I'd want to give any more money to MS, even though I've heard
that MS mice are pretty good. Does Logitech get any of the profits from
those MS mice?
====== 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: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel to pull out of Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 17:46:48 -0000
kiwiunixman wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Well if (as you (MH) said) all Linux users pirate, then I must be a
>loner in the fact that I BUY all my Linux software LEGALLY, everything
>from distro to applications. Yes, I could easily download these
>illegally off a hotline server, however, the only person at the end of
>the day I will be hurting is my self, as companies will discontinue
>selling Linux software due to piracy. However, I have little, or no
Don't forget that downloading distro's and most apps from the net is not
illegal like it is with windows - several distro's have iso images of their
distro's on their own ftp sites for users to download instead of buying it
(most of my distro's have come from the cover CD on linux magazines as
it is not illegal for magazine publishers to download iso images and
redistribute
them either). Other than possibly Corel linux I cannot think of any way thay
downloading a distro instead of buying it could ever be illegal (even if the
person downloading it resells copies this is allowed in the GPL licence).
Linux software (or at least the GPL parts) can never be pirated as it is
owned
by everyone - you are only giving away a copy of something the person you
are
giving it to already has rights to own.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:41:15 -0500
the_blur wrote:
> the
> > only way to protect this country. Can you PROVE the contrary?
>
> Your statement:
> Maybe our insulting Microsoft is the only way to protect this country.
>
> The negative / contrary statement to the above is:
>
> Maybe our insulting Microsoft is NOT the only way to protect this country.
>
> I think we can agree that he statement above is in theory at least, true. =)
> I think that's why we have armed forces =)
>
As long as they don't use NT on warships!
>
> Of course you can negate it in several ways:
>
> Maybe our NOT insulting Microsoft is the only way to protect this country.
> Maybe our insulting Microsoft is the only way to NOT protect this country.
>
> So anyway, you suck and so does the logic of the horse you rode in on. =)
>
Go tap dance in a mine field.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 18:43:40 GMT
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 16:57:12 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:hrK_5.94292$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> : If you are connected directly to the internet, and you
>> : have a business event that triggers a huge traffic event,
>> : your half-hour peak could involve over 1 million CALS spread
>> : across 100 servers (the Victoria Secret video).
>>
>> No it would not. IIS 4.0 has no licensing requirement for internet
>> connections.
>
>Nor does IIS 5.0, for that matter, or any web server I'm aware of.
>CAL doesn't mean that.
What about SQL Server? If you have dynamic web content that's served
from SQL Server, does each simultaneous connection from IIS require a
CAL or not?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:56:12 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > It's just that instead of accomidating for the changes in modern day
> > > computing,
> >
> > Translation: instead of violating good design principle in favor of
> > marketing buzz words, Linux choose GOOD over "IT SELLS"!
>
> Linux doesn't have the 'good' value anymore.
The quality of Linux is independent of its stock price.
> Just saying "it's more stable"
> isn't working (and RedHat software's stock will attest to that.) Without
> that "it's more stable"; Linux just seems to exist as the worlds largest,
> administrative headache.
And what OSes are less of an administrative headache?
>
>
> > > Linux has kept it's 30 year old mantra that "just stack something
> > > above me"
> >
> > This is called: A component based architechture. It's a hot new idea,
> > and all the rage (never mind the fact that it was invented in the
> > sixties).
>
> Exactly, it was invented in the 60's, instituted in the 70's, and abandoned
> in the 90's. Why? Because the OS is a whole component, it's programs are
> another component. Blending the two togather is an unnessecary, complicated
> and dumb idea when we no longer have to resolve issues as "terminal
> compatibility" and "technological propriotorization".
>
And does Linux blend them together more than other OSes?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:58:39 -0500
* wrote:
> "John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> > > ie: So how many people do YOU know running StarOffice?
> >
> > 139. (140, if you count a three year old who starts it, then types
> > random stuff into it 'cause everybody else uses it, and three year olds
> > are "monkey-see-monkey-do" creatures).
>
> yeah. so name them.
Why don't you post your name, troll?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:08:27 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> Here's a fucking concept, just PLUG IT IN.
>
> Doesn't work? Put in the CDROM that "it" is asking for, and get about your
> business.
>
> That's something that Linux can NEVER copy.
Why should I have to install a CD just to install a device. Case in point:
when I installed my HP Laserjet 6P in Linux, it was just a matter of
making a few choices. With Windows, I had to use a separate CD, hunt
down the drivers, and install them. Why does Windows make it so hard?
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
