Linux-Advocacy Digest #46, Volume #31 Sun, 24 Dec 00 11:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Looks kike Linux is taking the lead! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (mlw)
Re: Hotmail again {Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!} ("Richard Wright")
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:45:28 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 23 Dec 2000 23:43:42
>On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:40:31 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:43:43
>>GMT;
>
>>>RemarQ/Supernews offers an NNTP service to ISP's who want to outsource,
>>>as opposed to the web-based thing they offer to the public.
>
>>I am aware of all that, and as I stated in the original message, I am
>>entirely unwilling to pay a service which doesn't consider my market to
>>be their main source of business, or at least *a* main source of
>>business.
>
>I don't think you're following along here Max. My suggestion is that
>your ISP pay them, not you. We included Usenet in the subscription fee,
>just like email. For the most part we had fewer problems than when we
>were trying to do it ourselves. At least I didn't get paged at 4am
>because some bozo in Florida with a cable modem uploaded a couple GB of
>Grateful Dead tunes and filled up my spool.
You aren't keeping up, but its my fault. I've already said that I'm not
planning on using an ISP-provided news service, nor using RemarQ (resold
or not). The primary reason for avoiding an ISP-based news service is
they require that you be connected through their dial-up box in order to
access news. Since I always am going to be using a variety of business
and personal systems and dial-up accounts, I'm not satisfied with this
arrangement.
>> RemarQ has already proven in the past that it will screw over
>> NNTP users, because its going for the "web idiot gold mine".
>
>Ok, whatever. You don't like them. I guess I had a better experience.
>There's other suppliers.
And I'm sorry to have to point out that I did, in fact, begin the
discussion by asking who they may be. My distaste with RemarQ is not
merely an arbitrary preference; I've already explained that they do not
provide adequate service to their customers, as they are too busy trying
to extend and embrace and become some god-awful 'just keep paying us
regularly, and we'll give you everything' crap-site. I hate that kind
of thing, because every time I see it, it signals that service quality
is going to plummet, and prices are going to increase, while
alternatives become more and more scarce.
>>> Usenet is one of those things where there really are economies of
>>> scale.
>
>> So how come you had to pay by the number of simultaneous users?
>
>How else would you price it? You could do flat-rate, but that would
>mean the little customers subsidize the big ones.
Actually, the big customers subsidize the little ones; that's what
economies of scale are supposed to provide. Get it?
>The economies of scale I spoke about are related to the fact that a
>small ISP doing their own news server will be carrying thousands of
>groups that literally none of their customers read.
Actually, they won't be carrying any groups. How is that economies of
scale?
I know, I know. You're trying to say its cheaper for a large company to
run servers for bunches of ISPs. Which leaves my question, "How is it
'economies of scale' that they charge the ISPs per simultaneous user?"
You asked "how else", and that's really beside the point. However they
do it, apparently they aren't benefitting from 'economies of scale'.
>Yet there is no way
>to know in advance which groups to leave out and if you do leave some
>out sooner or later somebody will ask about them (even if they only read
>it once). So they are paying for disk space and bandwidth to download
>groups that nobody reads. And that's a lot of disk space and a lot
>of bandwidth these days.
Disk space and bandwidth are both entirely replenishable. Your argument
seems to ignore the fact that the entire basis of Usenet is servers
which deal with these issues precisely. Perhaps it is too much work to
handle it well, but its really a matter of how short your aging is.
Regardless, it doesn't address my primary concern about Usenet, which is
the incessant attempts to 'tie' it to other things, notably the web-site
orientation of most major news providers and the dial-up linking to an
IP address. I don't like what Deja or Supernews have become, and I
don't like my ISP "giving me" NNTP access only when I'm dialed in
through their links.
Truth is, maybe I'm old, maybe I'm naive, and maybe I'm lame,
idealistic, or both, but I'd expect I should be able to get the same
service I got five years ago, NNTP access unlinked to anything else,
cheaper than I could five years ago. Turns out, its not very popular,
even though I know it is the most reliable, powerful, scalable, and
flexible way to run discussion forums and article archives and such.
That sucks.
>A bigger operation avoids this waste, but they still have to provide
>per-user resources too.
What per-user resources? That's the fallacy; there are no per-user
resources.
>> They already do things like this, although their supplier is even more
>> focused on this type of thing than RemarQ is.
>
>Apparently they aren't satisfying you though.
No, but I am a really nightmarishly demanding consumer, when it comes
down to it. And the worst thing is, I absolutely refuse to give
feedback. You'll know I'm dissatisfied when I start buying from
somebody else.
Obviously, this ties in to why I am so widely known for hating
Microsoft. High priced shoddy goods, and no available substitutes.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:45:29 GMT
Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 23 Dec 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 22 Dec 2000
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 19 Dec 2000
>> >> 02:08:59 GMT;
>> >> >
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 17 Dec 2000
>> >> >> [...]
>> >> >> >The essence remains a properly administered NT system is as stable as any
>> >> >> >UNIX. At this time getting the proper administration skills to the system
>> >> >> >when they are needed is the problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bullshit.
>> >> >
>> >> >Same to you.
>> >>
>> >> The real world is a bit more unforgiving of monopoly crapware than you
>> >> are. I have to deal with monopoly crapware, too, you're right about
>> >> that. But I'm not dumb enough to buy that load of bullshit about NT
>> >> being stable, except for 'proper administration'. Its nothing but
>> >> hindsight bias.
>> >
>> >Only through your eyes.
>>
>> According to you. According to me, through any reasonable and informed
>> person's eyes. Your ball.
Ace.
>> >Sorry that you have problems, be specific maybe we
>> >can solve them for you.
>>
>> It is not a problem that other people can raise post-modernistic
>> arguments from ignorance in order to insist that my position encompasses
>> only my opinion; it is merely a fact of life. Your ball.
>
>I was asking about your system problems I'm a network project manager not a
>psychiatrist.
Fault.
Sorry, my mistake. I find it really extraordinarily (but unfortunately
also pathetically) funny when Microsoft apologists offer to help
troubleshoot crapware in exchange for posting information which they can
turn into potential blame-casting opportunities. Sorry, I know what
'network project managers' generally know, and believe me, if I can't
solve a problem, you won't be able to.
>> >Call it a learning experience.
>>
>> I call everything a learning experience. You are still mistaken, so
>> perhaps you should do the same, in this case. Your ball.
>
>Yeah but do you learn from them?
If I didn't, they'd just be 'experiences'. Get it?
Another set?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:45:31 GMT
Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 23 Dec 2000
>"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:922u16$hpp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Right chad. And you still have NO proof to show that the numbers are
>> wrong. The only thing you can say is that the netcraft numbers don't
>> come from the computers *you* think they should. YOu and the winvocates
>> here have NEVER shown that the numbers are NOT From W2K boxes and that
>> they are not accurate. Even Erics statement of how it works states
>> basicly the same. All of which is CLEARLY documented on the Webcraft
>> page. From all the actual evidance (real, not your claims) shows that
>> the numbers are indeed from W2K boxes and are indeed accurate.
>
>So how do you gain anonymous administrator access to secured performance
>metrics?
We don't know. Perhaps you can ask Netcraft, or Uptime, that question?
Apparently, there is a function in an HTTP server which provides uptime.
There's no particular issue about 'secured performance metrics'; that's
just in your imagination.
>> 2 sources claim the same thing you despite your persistand claims that
>> they are worng, neither have been PROVEN to be giving false information.
>> Yes, Netcraft does not always get the numbers from the webserver proper,
>> but the numbers it does get for W2K DO come from W2K and are accurate,
>> even according to eric.
>
>Repeating the big lie, Joe Goebbells would be proud of you.
Unfortunately, your statement is an argument from ignorance. Not to
mention an ad hominem. You're a real peach, Chad.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:45:32 GMT
Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 23 Dec 2000
>"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Prove that the software that gets loaded for the Uptimes tracking can
>> not track the actual uptime for the server it is on. After all, if it
>> relied on the metrics that are available from NT, the NT boxes in the to
>> 100 would not be there. They would have rolled over at 49.7 days. Just
>> as the default metric on NT always does! The uptime used by Uptimes does
>> not use the standard metric. and that does not make them wrong. infact
>> it gets past the limitations of MS softare.
>
>OK, How? In detail please.
An argument from ignorance. Get a real opinion.
>So far your arguments are repeated conjecture
>even in the face of some convicing contrary and independently corroborated
>(use your dictionary) evidence.
Sorry, there has been no contrary nor corroborated evidence which
refuted or even impugned the statements so far. The statements will
cease to be 'repeated conjecture' when you recognize they are, as the
subject line indicates, conclusions.
[...]
>How can the data cosidered good when a request sent to a given web server is
>replied to by a router, firewall or other system in certain, quite common,
>installations?
Because the data then reflects the uptime of the router, firewall, or
other system. I believe your making a conjecture, so far
unsubstantiated, that the 'network characteristics' used could represent
a different system than the uptime could reflect. There is no real
reason to suppose this, however, (other than the obvious one, which is
to avoid recognizing that W2K is an unreliable platform), and it would
require some evidence in support to be taken seriously. Netcraft and
Uptime do report on the uptime for the OS correctly, according to them,
so until you can refute that in real life, rather than merely in your
imagination, you're stuck in a dead-end argument.
>> No doccumented proof showing W2K as stable in the production world vs. 2
>> sources showing W2K is NOT stable and NO documented proof showing that
>> the numbers from EITHER site are wrong! Even Eric's claims match what
>> Netcraft states the numbers to be (read the FAQ)
>
>Empirical data is all I can give you, but since that contradicts your
>desired hypothesis you don't hear.
What a preposterous statement! You haven't provided a single iota of
empirical data! What a lousy troll you are. Goodbye.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:45:33 GMT
Said Tim Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Dec 2000 16:37:31 -0800;
>On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:42:02 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Hardly; it is the textbooks which agree with mlw's statement that
>>"Windows" is not an OS. And it isn't. Its middleware, most
>
>Which textbooks?
>
>The typical definition of OS is along the lines of it is the software
>that does the scheduling, controls access to devices, manages memory,
>and provides the filesystem.
The textbook cited by Erik stated that some of these "may" be provided
by an OS.
>Let's check Win95 against these:
>
>Scheduling: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
DOS doesn't have scheduling. Well, DOS 4 didn't have scheduling. DOS 6
and 7 might or might not, depending on whether you admit that DOS 6 and
7 exist.
>Device access: Handled by VXDs, which are Windows drivers, not DOS
> drivers.
>Memory: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
>
>Filesystem: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
Actually, this is a classic point. Since the filesystem, device access,
and memory handling in DOS were so lousy, it becomes rather arbitrary
whether these features, when added, are accounted for by extensions to
DOS or enhancements in Windows. All of these have been modified, but
still are linked, in WinDOS (Win386 to Win98ME) to what DOS was before
it was bundled with Windows, so one has to wonder whether these are only
part of Windows because you say they are, not because of any technical
understanding of the relationship between DOS and so-called 'DOS
extenders' and, separately, the abstract difference between an OS and
middleware. Your impulsive assignment of everything to "Windows"
because that's the name on the box and in the Microsoft markitecture
diagrams is quite illustrative of the problem.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Looks kike Linux is taking the lead!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Dec 2000 02:09:19 +1100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>That's because they pander to pseudo-intellectual in-duh-viduals
>who have a difficult time distinguishing between a computer monitor
>and a boob tube.
In the spirit of Christmas, I'll shoot a ball for Steve's team:
Q: How can you tell a Linux user from a Windows user?
A: When they walk up to a pretty woman in a boob tube working on a
computer, the one that looks at the cathode ray tube will be the
Linux user!
Hey, I didn't say I'd *score* for their team! So no need to tell me
its lame.
Bernie
--
On the highest throne in the world, we still sit only on our own
bottom
Montaigne
French moralist, 1533-92
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:02:19 -0500
Tim Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:52:46 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You seem to be confusing Windows 9x with NT. I refer you to Andrew
> >Schulman's book "Unauthorized Windows 95, Developers Resource Kit" or
> >"Inside Windows 95" by Adrian King. (MS Press). Or you could download
> >the Windows DDK and read the help files.
>
> It is customary to only cite sources you've read.
Not only do have I read them, I have them in a book shelf behind me.
What's your point?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Richard Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Hotmail again {Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!}
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 16:00:02 -0000
Firstly, yes July is recently.
Netcraft used to have a graph that showed this.
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:btA06.11572$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Richard Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91tsq4$2vu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hotmail WAS recently transferred to a win 2000 server.
>
> July is recently?
>
> > And now a netcraft
> > graph clearly shows it has more downtime than when it was on Unix.
>
> The netcraft graph doesn't show the uptimes when they were on Unix, so how
> can you support this claim?
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: 24 Dec 2000 16:06:30 GMT
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writ:
> All this hardware works because they all have the fortune of being based
> around America's top 10% hardware.
> 9.Jaz 1G: It's a tape drive, it's from iomega. But it's still a tape drive.
Jazz 1Gb by Syquest is a removeable cartridge *hard drive*. I
guess Iomega made some sort of equivalent device. What actually
did you have in mind?
> So you see, your stock collection of top hardware, and hardware based around
> other top 10% hardware makes your system the ideal runner for a Linux
> distro.
>
>
Vacuo
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
