Linux-Advocacy Digest #988, Volume #30 Wed, 20 Dec 00 11:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Conclusion (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ? ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (The Ghost In The Machine)
sd ("Min")
Re: Windows review (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows review (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ? (.)
Re: Windows review (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ? (.)
Re: Windows review (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Conclusion (sfcybear)
Re: Conclusion (sfcybear)
Re: Conclusion (sfcybear)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:00:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, sfcybear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:42:25 GMT
<91l7og$md2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <1xe%5.10927$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:91jkjb$l5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In my own case, Unix appears much more stable than Windows. The
>local NT
>> > user's group cannot provide any evidence to back up any claim to the
>> > contrary. There are anectdotal data here in the newgroup, but I
>give them
>> > no weight at all. In the end, I can either go with an OS that I
>know will
>> > be stable (Unix) or I can go with an OS that may be stable
>(Windows). I'm
>> > taking the sure bet.
>>
>> If it's such a sure bet, why are there so many Unix systems with worse
>> uptimes than NT?
>
>On average NT's uptime averages are far worse than the Unix. To make the
>claim that you have just made is a misuse of stats.
*Reported* uptimes, please. NT has a timer rollover bug which
means that if NT is left up for 49.7 days, it will report back
with 0 on its uptime. (Linux's rollover is 497 days.)
At least, such is my understanding. Or does Netcraft (and,
by implication, others) have the capability of checking for
the time of last reboot? (How?)
>
>
>
>>
>> BTW, you will note that there are no Linux machines in the top 50
>uptimes.
>
>
>Yeah, I bet that gets you hard! But There is not a SINGLE MS machine on
>the list. It's all Unix.
What, no VM/CMS, MVS, TOPS-20, or VMS? :-) I'm crushed.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OK, so I haven't actually used TOPS-20....
up 85 days, 20:15, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:46:36 +0000
"." wrote:
> In my experience, there is mostly very little difference between an
> applicant with lots of schooling AND experience, and an applicant
> with lots of experience and no schooling.
Your experience doesn't match up with that of many other people. Of
course, one of the keys is to look at whether the people are keeping
up with all the latest developments in the relevant fields (and that
means more than just watching MS press releases...) and whether they
personally want to be called in in 3 years time to fix things. (The
threat of the project haunting them for years to come concentrates
minds most wonderfully!)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- He has the intelligence of a small mollusc and the practical experience of
a split-pea. -- Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:17:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bracy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:48:36 GMT
<EhF%5.16475$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Is Windows really easier to use than Linux?
[snip for brevity]
>I've found that solving a problem in Linux is generally much easier and
>straightforward than it is in Windows. It's much easier to edit a text
>file than it is to edit the Windows Registry. Try calling tech support
>and telling them that you edited your Registry, and then see how much
>tech support you receive.
It's also easier -- even if one has to spell it letter-by-letter --
to tell the user to type in a command line such as
ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 up
than to "walk through" the wizards with him, IMO.
Especially if those wizards have cutesy icons with no text.
(Thank goodness for balloon help. :-) )
One can also transmit those text files through Email (insecure),
ftp (insecure), or scp (secure), in order to help resolve
the problem. How does one do that with a registry? I
suppose one could bottle up the hive and ship it (it's stored
in multiple binary files); can a tech person do anything with it,
though?
>
>I contend that Linux is NOT more difficult than Windows, it is just
>different. To move from Windows to Linux, one must re-learn
>*everything.* One must learn a new architecture, new installation
>procedure, new bootup sequence, new command-line interface, new
>GUI interface, new programming tools, new applications -- everything.
>But that doesn't mean that it's more difficult.
>
>Troubleshooting a problem on a Linux system is, IMHO, generally
>much easier and swifter than troubleshooting a problem in Windows.
If one knows the system and knows where to look. At least
on Linux, though, one has a fighting chance, even if one has
to look deep in the kernel to resolve an IP fragmentation bug
that's mysteriously killing systems.
Is the NT's BSOD all that useful? What can one glean therefrom?
Does NT "dump core" somewhere when it panics, and are there tools
to retrieve it? HP-UX does, and I'd be surprised if Solaris didn't.
(I'd be surprised if NT didn't, but it wouldn't be called "core"
and I don't know where it would look.)
I don't know if Linux does. However, HP-UX has to have a dedicated
area for dumping -- that's only reasonable, given that when a kernel
panics, almost everything about the system is now suspect.
>
>Bracy
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random brain dump here
up 85 days, 20:23, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Min" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: sd
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:21:55 +0800
sdfasdffas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:31:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:03:42 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Tom Wilson wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "Brian V. Smith" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
>> writes:
>> > >
>> > > |> >The cards I've seen at Office Depot are a little over a dollar a
>> megabyte.
>> > > |>
>> > > |> And you call that cheap? That would mean 128MB would cost about
>> > > |> $130!!!
>> > >
>> > > Big deal. That IS cheap. Several years ago 128MB would have cost MUCH
>> more.
>> > > --
>> >
>> > Remember when 16K cost US $500?
>>
>> I remember holding an entire tube of the things and thinking what kind of
>> car I could buy with it.
>
>
>I remember thinking that the 4 GB address space of the VAX-11 series
>was essentially infinite....and then 2 years ago, at Kmart, we set
>up a server for a pilot program with 1.5G of memory on board.
>That was in a medium-sized warehouse. The large warehouses will
>probably need 3G.
Strange how times have changed. I remember that too, back in
the late 1980's when I used VMS. (I now have 9x more disk space
than that VAX ever did -- and could buy even more if need be.
In fact, I can hold more than half that disk space in the palm
of my hand (I have SyJet cartridges with 1.5GB; that old VAX
had about 2.4 GBs using 6 400 megabyte Fujitsu's, which were
bigger than my entire maxi tower!). I could probably hold
more than that now; SyJets aren't that new.
And my systems are old and tiny compared to Sun's 64-CPU monsters,
or even a dual Pentium 1.something Ghz Xeon (Zeon?).)
"640K should be enough for anybody". -- Bill Gates, 1981 (alleged)
"I never said '640K should be enough for anybody!" -- Bill Gates, 02/1996
(http://nytsyn.com/live/Gates/019_011996_094929_4351.html)
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 85 days, 20:38, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:39:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Curtis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:53:52 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Schuetze) posted:
>
>| On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 03:03:40 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| > Grandpappy doesn't _want_ to hack kernels, he wants to write documents and
>| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>| > browse the web; what possible use are command lines and hacked kernels to
>| > him?
>|
>| Because all good documents are written in vi, with tex. If you
>| don't understand the command line, you'll never figure out tex.
>|
>| But then I'm biased of course. I think gui's are for weenies
>| who are to stupid or lazy to figure out the command line. I
>| mean really, how hard is it? Its not rocket science.
>
>You must be a short man or have a short penis. <shaking head>
Oh, right, like this proves anything.
TeX is an excellent -- I'm not quite sure what to call it,
because it's basically a converter that takes a textual
description of a document (with lots of dollar signs, backslashes,
and braces :-) ) and generates a device-independent file which
can be interpreted by lots of things, among them dvips and
xdvi (the first for printing, the second for viewing).
Reminiscent of troff, albeit more capable and the format
is more portable.
It's the best typesetter of equations I know of, but it's
certainly not a word processor in the usual sense of
being able to type in a GUI and WYSIWYMGIYL (What You See
Is What You Might Get If You're Lucky) [*].
Its main drawback -- which probably has been addressed by now --
is that it can't include pictures; the simplest way around
that is to draw the pictures separately using xfig, then
run the paper through twice.
[.sigsnip]
[*] That's pronounced "whizzy-wymgile". :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random mispronounciation here
up 85 days, 20:48, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ?
Date: 20 Dec 2000 14:59:56 GMT
him self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2000 21:13:23 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Try 5 years system administration and architecture experience,
>> with preference to over 2 years project management and network
>> planning experience. School doesnt matter.
>>
> The ability required to complete a good degree
> program is a necessary ingredient in the making
> of an analyst.
This ability can be seen in other venues besides university.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:01:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:25:18 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, considering most can barely grasp the idea of double-clicking,
>> > hacking the kernel seems to be way to overbearing.
>> >
>> > Windows gives the appearance of being easy, but allows you to get
>> > down to the nitty gritty if you know what you're doing.
>> >
>> > Linux, OTOH, forces you to be a kernel developer to do the most basic
>> > things.
>> >
>> > It tries not to be, but the overriding arrogance built into it
>> > is overwhelming for a novice user.
>>
>> Neat, I never knew an OS could be arrogant!
>>
>> > Why would he want to do that? Most of them don't care, they're
>> > just writing documents to print out. Besides, who cares about
>> > those poor Linux users who painted themselves into a corner and
>> > are now whining for everyone else to cave to their demands.
>>
>> You got it wrong, Chad. Linux arose because a large group of people
>> decided to create an operating system that does what they want.
>
>Imagine that.
Indeed. What an outlandish concept, the thought that the user should
be able to control his equipment rather than having it control him.
That's just so ... so ... retro. :-)
Mind you, I think both "distributions" [*] try, but at different levels.
Linux gives one fairly precise control -- to the point of hacking
the kernel if need be -- if one is technically proficient, but I
get the feeling that the user who's not knowledgable about computers
may get lost at times in the higher-level scripts. I occasionally
do things the old-fashioned way (like editing /etc/HOSTNAME and
/etc/sysconfig/network, as opposed to going through linuxconf
or netcfg) -- but at least with Linux, I can do that and
expect meaningful results. I can even, in theory, work out
what it's doing by looking at the scripts, the commands executed
thereby, and the source code of those commands. (Now that would
be a job! But some ultra-paranoid companies -- like, maybe, the
Department of Defense -- may require that every command line,
script, and line of program code be auditable; not unreasonable
for levels of security -- and paranoia, in some cases -- that we mere
users can only dream about, but then, I wouldn't want a casual
hacker, a la Matthew Broderick, to be able to initiate Nuclear
Armageddon (WarGames), thank you very much.)
NT gives the illusion of control at a high level, but that control
quickly gets tangled in a maze of API calls for the developer.
ADO calls just lose me; I've yet to figure out what's going on in there.
And Microsoft calls this "advanced"? "Obfuscated" is more like it.
If someone were to write an X widget (most likely, a GTK widget)
to display postgresql output, it would undoubtedly be far cleaner;
I could even step in and do it -- or use pgtksh, a combination
of Tcl (a crude but useful command language), commands
for handling Postgres (added to Tcl), and Tk (a powerful widget set).
Lego(r)(tm) blocks, anyone? :-)
(I suspect someone's done it already, anyway. I just haven't looked. :-) )
[.sigsnip]
[*] NT is both an operating kernel, and a distribution of tools
around that kernel.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random Global Thermonuclear War! here
up 85 days, 20:57, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ?
Date: 20 Dec 2000 15:01:06 GMT
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>> In my experience, there is mostly very little difference between an
>> applicant with lots of schooling AND experience, and an applicant
>> with lots of experience and no schooling.
> Your experience doesn't match up with that of many other people.
Who've been told by inexperienced middle and upper management that
degrees are absolutely nessesary. I know all about that, ive worked
with a number of these poor, misinformed managers.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:05:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kelsey Bjarnason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Dec 2000 07:13:23 GMT
<nS%X5.10322$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[snips]
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> > The original quote I was responding to: "But even if you're a new user,
>it's
>> > still worth taking the time to learn how to use the command line."
>> >
>> > Now, what benefit does the command line offer Grandpappy, as a new user?
>>
>>
>> Which is easier:
>>
>> a) opening 50 documents, one at a time, trying to find which one
>> references a specific peculiar topic...
>>
>> or
>>
>> B) grep _keyword_ [*.document_files]
>
>Let's see:
>
>cd /folder
>grep ribosome *.doc
>grep -? Aha: use -i to ignore case
>grep -i ribosome *.doc
>grep -? Aha: use -r to recurse!
>grep -i -r ribosome *.doc
>found: /folder/documents/research/data1.doc
>
>vs:
>
>Start/Search/Files
>/folder
>ribosome
><click>
>found: /folder/documents/research/data1.doc
>Note: also shows link to folder containing the document, as well as
>double-clickable shortcut to document itself. To use, just click.
>
>Of course, if you use grep often enough, you'll get to memorize all those
>command-switches. Note that word, "memorize". Now go have a read of "The
>Design of Everyday Things", and see what the author has to say about things
>which need to be memorized versus things where the options are right there
>in front of you, and it's impact on usability.
But that's what 'grep -?' is for. :-) Even Windows has that;
try, for example, 'FORMAT/?' or 'DIR/?' some time in a DOS box.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 85 days, 21:20, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:03:40 GMT
In article <8aq%5.32190$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Martin Ozolins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> Martin Ozolins
> Project Manager
> ComputerWorks Technologies
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (818)244-4440
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:916hel$el3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <AEjZ5.1597$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "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.
> >
> >
> > What a crock of BS!
> >
>
> Where's your supporting documentation or is that just your opinion.
When chad actualy posts some documentation that supports any of his
"opinions" I'll think about posting some evidance of his BS. Untill
then:
My opinion is that W2K is *NOT* stable. Evidance of this is at
www.netcraft.com
www.uptimes.org
What documentation has chad posted that supports his "opinion"?
www.chadrules.not
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:06:55 GMT
In article <Qot%5.10989$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91l7og$md2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <1xe%5.10927$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:91jkjb$l5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In my own case, Unix appears much more stable than Windows. The
> > local NT
> > > > user's group cannot provide any evidence to back up any claim to
the
> > > > contrary. There are anectdotal data here in the newgroup, but I
> > give them
> > > > no weight at all. In the end, I can either go with an OS that I
> > know will
> > > > be stable (Unix) or I can go with an OS that may be stable
> > (Windows). I'm
> > > > taking the sure bet.
> > >
> > > If it's such a sure bet, why are there so many Unix systems with
worse
> > > uptimes than NT?
> >
> > On average NT's uptime averages are far worse than the Unix. To make
the
> > claim that you have just made is a misuse of stats.
>
> Of course, because it doesn't fit your argument.
>
> The OP said that Unix was a "sure bet" which is simply not the case.
That
> was my point.
>
What the f*ck are you talking about?
I case you have not noticed, Many stupid people will bet against a "sure
bet". Get it?
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:09:28 GMT
In article <91mp9p$30ed$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The OP said that Unix was a "sure bet" which is simply not the
case. That
> > was my point.
>
> Now we're just nit-picking on semantics.
This is a common method used by W2K supporters when they have lost the
debate based on facts.
It's all relative. Not even a
> S/390 with a MTBF (mean time between failure) of 25 years is a sure
bet.
>
> Besides, having a bunch of low numbers of Netcraft is not an
indication of
> instability, there are such things as voluntary reboots. It's only
when all
> or most of the values are low that there is a problem. Unix does not
fit
> into this category.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:13:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, sfcybear
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:42:25 GMT
> <91l7og$md2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >In article <1xe%5.10927$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:91jkjb$l5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > In my own case, Unix appears much more stable than Windows. The
> >local NT
> >> > user's group cannot provide any evidence to back up any claim to
the
> >> > contrary. There are anectdotal data here in the newgroup, but I
> >give them
> >> > no weight at all. In the end, I can either go with an OS that I
> >know will
> >> > be stable (Unix) or I can go with an OS that may be stable
> >(Windows). I'm
> >> > taking the sure bet.
> >>
> >> If it's such a sure bet, why are there so many Unix systems with
worse
> >> uptimes than NT?
> >
> >On average NT's uptime averages are far worse than the Unix. To make
the
> >claim that you have just made is a misuse of stats.
>
> *Reported* uptimes, please. NT has a timer rollover bug which
> means that if NT is left up for 49.7 days, it will report back
> with 0 on its uptime. (Linux's rollover is 497 days.)
>
> At least, such is my understanding. Or does Netcraft (and,
> by implication, others) have the capability of checking for
> the time of last reboot? (How?)
We have been using 2 different sets of stats, both indicate W2K as
unstable the other www.uptimes.org shows a couple of NT devices in the
top 100. The winvocates claim that this means NT is stable. My claim,
based on the evidance that can be found at www.uptimes.org, NT, on
average is not stable.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> BTW, you will note that there are no Linux machines in the top 50
> >uptimes.
> >
> >
> >Yeah, I bet that gets you hard! But There is not a SINGLE MS machine
on
> >the list. It's all Unix.
>
> What, no VM/CMS, MVS, TOPS-20, or VMS? :-) I'm crushed.
>
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com
> >http://www.deja.com/
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OK, so I haven't actually used TOPS-20....
> up 85 days, 20:15, running Linux.
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:25:20 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > dvick wrote:
> > >
> > > "taking a turn at the government teat"???
> > > Isn't that just an insulting way of saying the government pays for the
> > > armed forces? Where else do you expect the military to get funding
> > > but from the government? Bakes sales? Charging money for HMMWV
> > > rides?
> >
> > Why not? That's how our schools end up raising money for frills like
> > desks and blackboards.
>
> But... you wouldn't have schools, or desks, or blackboards if it weren't
> for the military protecting us.
>
> I really wish I knew what it was about you liberals that you never seem
> to understand what role the military has in our freedom. You're so used
> to everything coming free from the government, you just assume that
> freedom is free and abundant.
No, no. It is purely a question of optimization of resources. But,
even in a theoretical world, that question is very difficult, and each
theorist comes up with a different result.
You are right, though, in implying that a warring society won't have
the resources for schooling. And a position of strength (at least at
home) will help avoid war (at least at home).
Hey, although I'm a liberal kind of guy, I came /this close/ to joining
the Army when I was a kid. And I like many of the things that the
military brings aside from might -- high technology, self-discipline,
team discipline, esprit de corp, elan, self-confidence. I just don't
want to pay big bucks for weapons systems that have a high probability
of sitting idle until DERMO'd.
Chris
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
