Linux-Advocacy Digest #86, Volume #31 Wed, 27 Dec 00 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! (Generic PC CPRM copy control) ("Adam Warner")
Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application package.
(Peter Hayes)
Re: Could only... ("theworld")
Re: Windows Stability ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Conclusion ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Conclusion ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Conclusion ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Conclusion ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Conclusion ("Chad C. Mulligan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! (Generic PC CPRM copy control)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:06:10 +1200
Thanks "Tesla Coil",
> > Can anyone find a main stream news organisation that is
> > covering this story? Everything feels eerily silent (perhaps
> > its just the Christmas season).
>
> Indeed, however...
>
> "New technology could help squelch digital music piracy"
> By John Borland, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
> December 27, 2000, 3:05 p.m. PT
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4292282.html
So Intel is writing about itself again without warning people that Intel is
an investor in CNet.
["Waiting in the wings to take advantage of the standards body's proposal is
a specific technology jointly created by Intel, IBM, Matsushita Electric and
Toshiba, dubbed Content Protection for Recordable Media (CPRM)].
How refreshing that fair use doesn't even get a mention. And that putting
"content providers' fears to rest" seems most important.
"Fixed hard drives are a possibility, but that's unlikely at first,"
Lotspiech said. "It's not impossible, but that's certainly not (this
technology's) intent."
But IBM is interested in implementing this in Microdrives! (And of course
regardless of IBM's intent CPRM IS in going to be implemented in the new ATA
specification without sustained protest).
Frankly the distinction between fixed/portable hard disks is a straw man.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application
package.
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 00:58:46 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:03:14 -0600, Spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <Rant Mode>
> It really gets frustrating to download an application...mostly in source
> form....and try to install and compile, then find
> that the package requires 2 or 3 other packages.....some of which can
> only be compiled so that the application you compile
> can find the bits of source code/include files necessary from those
> packages. In most cases, the Developer tells you up front
> everything that you need, but a lot of them don't.
Bugs me too. My hard drive is littered with apps that won't compile for
reasons like this.
The real answer is for the developer to supply static binaries for those of
us who just want to run the app, as well as source code for the more
adventurous.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "theworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "theworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:31:26 GMT
The difference is that in the US is happens again, and again, and again and
again, and everytime the
governernment "tries" to do something about it, the so-called constitution
waivers start running around
crapping on about it's the constitutional right to have a gun....America,
the land of the ignorant and arrogant.
It will never end until (which won't happen) the general population wake
up from there gun crazed
obsession and relised they aren't the symbol of democracy, merly a bi-product
of years of indotrination.
the world has spoken
israel raj thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 12:29:30 +0100, Ralph Miguel Hansen
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>worldviewer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Could only happen in America:
>>>
>>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4277328.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.zfree.co.nz
>>>
>>>
>>And in Germany too.
>
>And in Australia...
>The Martin Bryant shooting.
>I think he shot 9 people in Tasmania a few years ago.
http://www.zfree.co.nz
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:39:29 GMT
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:928sa4$fqv$03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > Wrong.
> > I can run today's windows on a 4 years old mid-range computer quite
> > comfortablely, be that a server or a desktop.
> > I don't do it for reasons that has nothing to do with Windows the OS, I
> > can't play any of the new games on a 4 year old computer, many
> > applications would work horribly or not work at all on a four years old
> > computer. OTOH, I've nearby a win2k (P233,32MB) which run Bryce half the
> > time.
> >
> > On general, I've noticed, Windows can run on a 5 years old mid-to-high
> > range computers.
> >
>
> You know, don't you, that 2K will NOT even install an an machine with 32MB
> So why do you tell lies like this. Even NT4 would be a pain in the ass on
a
> machine like that. I know, I had the bad luck and had to install NT4 on
> stuff like that. You can't even run decent Minsweeper on such a machine
> On the other hand, Linux would chomp away quite happyly on that thing
>
Wrong. Windows 2000 professional WILL install on a 32MB machine with at
least one gigabyte hard disk.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:43:15 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 23 Dec 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> So others are clueless, too. That's not what is meant by
"corroborating
> >> evidence".
> >
> >I wouldn't exactly say that. Any Idea how Netcraft and Uptimes get
around
> >the defautl limitation restricting enumeration of performance metrics to
> >Administrators?
>
> You're riffing, dude. As in "making that up off the top of your head".
> As in there's no such thing. No, I have no idea how either site gets
> their uptime statistics, other than the carefully vague clues they
> provide on their sites. If you don't either, just say so, rather than
> make a fool of yourself by making things up.
>
Not. The default system policy is only the Administrator can enumerate
performance data. How do they get past that little policy setting?
> --
> 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: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:45:04 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad C. Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 23 Dec 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Chad C. Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 21 Dec 2000
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Said Chad C. Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 01 Dec 2000
> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >I'd think the developer is required to write his application
correctly
> >to
> >> >> >the target platform.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think that's because you presume, incorrectly, that software
> >> >> development is an academic pursuit. Currently, writing software is
a
> >> >> commercial venture. Which means the developer has what requirements
> >the
> >> >> *customer* places on them, entirely independent and unrelated to the
> >> >> arbitrary and entirely unimportant suggestions that the platform
> >> >> developer might have for how the API is most "correctly" used.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >A developer with that attitude won't stay in business long, they'll
soon
> >> >join the ranks of open sores.
> >>
> >> You are correct; it is not possible to compete with anti-competitive
> >> behavior. In the current, disfunctional, software markets, an honest
> >> and talented programmer has less of a chance of staying in business
then
> >> a thief and a liar. Yet another reason Windows is monopoly crapware.
> >
> >You are right but for the wrong reason.
>
> HA! Like you could even begin to adequately understand, let alone
> render a judgement, on my reasoning. You're a brainwashed dupe, from
You are right about that. Your simian logic definitely escapes me.
> what I can see, based on the hogwash you've been posting to
> alt.destroy.microsoft. We get a couple of unfortunate tossers like you
> in here a month. Cross-posted without realizing it, and now it turns
> out some people have gotten fed up with Microsoft's apologists' whining
> and arm-waving, and you're just totally unprepared for it. Gotten too
> soft-headed, assuming that everyone's going to get all uncomfortable if
> you give them some passive aggressive bullshit, and take meaningless
> jabber for technical expertise, and post-modern arguments from ignorance
> are the be-all and end-all of discussion. Well, now you've stepped in
> it; it might be worth you while to just step back and avoid this
> newsgroup.
>
> >I am correct that poor programming
> >makes it difficult for a software company to stay in business. This
> >monopoly argument is annoying repetitive and self-delusional.
>
> Or, perfectly valid and unrefuted by your lame-ass apologist bullshit
> and FUD, possibly?
>
Moron.
> --
> 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: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:46:20 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad C. Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 23 Dec 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Chad C. Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 21 Dec 2000
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Said Chad C. Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 01 Dec 2000
> ><trimmed>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Nope, it is a sign that a quickie port of software without
consideration
> >of
> >> >the target platform is doomed to fail.
> >>
> >> Yes, that is another reason Windows is monopoly crapware. The only
> >> platform where the most powerful and successful workgroup product gets
a
> >> quickie port, because Windows, while being the largest installed base,
> >> is the least standard and rational.
> >
> >So now it is Microsoft's fault that Lotus developers didn't bother to
look
> >at the platform.
>
> Don't be a moron. Its one thing for me to claim some potentially
> abstract and tenuous tie between monopolization and shoddy products, its
> another for you to say something stupid like that.
>
Think before you speak (or type).
> >BTW you are overstating both the power and sucess of Notes,
> >it is buggy and unstable crap on any platform even OS2 where it was
> >developed.
>
> So says One Microsoft Way, so says we all, eh? You putz.
>
No dork, So says anyone who's been forced to use that crap.
> --
> 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: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:47:00 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:FFW06.51210$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:R5V06.21698$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If I pay for it it is a product. Production releases of software
aren't
> > > > services they are product. Beta isn't production releases. Ergo no
> > > > product.
> > >
> > > You mean it should work when you get it and not need any service
> > > packs or upgrades to do what it was supposed to have done
> > > right in the first place? There seems to be a real shortage
> > > of software like that...
> > >
> >
> > Not necessarily but the assurance that the service packs etc., will be
> > forthcoming would be nice. A two year old package should have more than
> > beta level replacement options.
> >
>
> You keep on harping on Star Office, whining about how there have been no
> updates in 2 years and use that as some sort of failure of Open Source.
Yet
> you fail to admit that your basic premise is wrong - Star Office has
existed
> for years. Most of that 2 years lack of development you complain about
was
> during the time Star Office was CLOSE SOURCE. As soon as it became Open
> Source, updates started to occur. So, what again is your argument? It
looks
> like you have provided evidence of the failure of closed source - just the
> opposite of what you have been whining about.
>
There are no updates yet. Remember beta doesn't count.
> Gary
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:47:36 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mWn16.182$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tim Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >The point is that Alpha and Beta releases are part of a normal software
> > >development cycle whether you develop for windows or any other
platform.
> >
> > True if you limit yourself to software development models from 20 year
> > old textbooks. Newer models don't necessarily have alpha and beta
> > releases.
>
> They should.
>
Amen
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Sunbelt Software Solutions
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:48:47 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 03:38:00 GMT,
> Chad C. Mulligan, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Also, the "Free" in Free Software doesn't primarily refer to
> >> > > money bu to sourcecode. Then you can do all the source auditing
> >> > > out want. Infact, one of the BSDs is geared specifically with
> >> > > that in mind.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > So you would pay for a freebie?
> >>
> >> Many people do just that. The Free Software Foundation has been selling
> >> free-software compilations for nearly 20 years. If you speak French
think
> >> "libre" rather than "gratis". In English think "free country", not
"free
> >> lunch".
> >>
> >
> >So much for lower up front costs. There goes TCO even further up for
Linux.
>
> Aren't you the one allways talking about how the initial cost of the OS
> is such a tiny part of TCO?
>
Yes, but they do exist.
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:49:20 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:34:52 -0800, Martin Ozolins
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I really don't think anyone in their right mind who spends millions on
> >hardware is going to risk that investment on a share ware OS.
>
> Unfortunately for that theory, IBM has recently sold a multi-million
> dollar system that will be running Linux. To Telia, a large ISP/telco
> in Europe.
>
> BTW, Linux isn't "shareware", it is "open source". There's a difference.
>
True, there is actually some good shareware.
>
> >All these companies are doing is expanding their own customer lists.
When
> >Linux isn't producing new leads for them they'll drop support like a hot
> >rock.
>
> Yup, just like when Windows isn't producing new leads for them. The day
> when either of those happens seems to be quite a way off yet.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:51:14 GMT
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> > "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Such software usually has the feature set frozen but the final
> > debugging
> > > > > > (hint) is not yet complete.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're describing Linux 2.4.0-testXX, you know that?
> > > > >
> > > > Right, not a released product.
> > >
> > > Correct, Linux is not a product. The economics of closed software
assumes
> > > software-as-a-product, however the economics of open source
development
> > assumes
> > > software-as-a-service.
> > >
> >
> > If I pay for it it is a product.
>
> Economics is not your strong point, is it?
>
Are you saying that software isn't a product, produced by developers?
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:58:41 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Yfn16.174$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ELw06.15239$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <snippage>
>
> > Mine are designed that way too.
> >
> > > The internal structure will typically be quite complex, with access
> > > to the "public" servers, internal web servers etc in their own DMZ(s)
> > > and so on - I'm more concerned with the external view for this
example.
> >
> > And another reason Netcraft numbers should be taken with a grain of
salt.
> > hear that Matt?
>
> I think this whole debate is meaningless. Netcraft statistics, like any
> other statistics, can be manipulated or outright distorted to fit ANY
point
> of view and are therefore next to useless. The only yardstick any of us
have
> is our own experiences with the platforms in question.
>
That's the point some have been trying to make.
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Sunbelt Software Solutions
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 02:01:12 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 23 Dec 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<trimmed>
> >
> >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.
>
Well I've got 18 years as a Systems and Network Administrator to fall back
on so try me, unless you are afraid that you really did do something stupid.
> >> >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: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 02:02:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>
<conclusion>
There isn't so the netcraft and Uptime numbers are bogus.
</conclusion>
> >> 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: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 02:04:26 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 03:49:09 GMT,
> Chad C. Mulligan, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:91vpdg$967$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <ZGy06.16247$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> ><trimmed>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > And Ghost in the Machine, and several others.
> >>
> >>
> >> You are also forgetting the *Documented Fact* that WWW.UPTIMES.ORG a
> >> second METHOD of gathering stats, gives the same results. BOTH indicate
> >> w2K is UNSTABLE!
> >>
> >
> >Or they both cannot get the correct metrics from the machine. By default
> >performance metrics are only available to authenticated administrators.
>
>
> When instabilities or inaccuracies are claimed im M$ products, you calll
loudly
> (and understandably) for proof. Now you wish us to accept with no proof
> offered, that two separate processes/products have the same exact flaw?
> Put up your proof...
>
Not really, I started pointing out to Mat that unreliable input data are not
going to produce reliable output data.
>
> >
> >> Does that make the uptime *average* wrong? not in the way that Netcraft
> >> defines what the stat means. Does Uptimes relate to a sinlge machine?
> >> YES. Does Uptimes indicate that W2K is unstable as well? YES! 2
> >> different methods, same result. But you seem to ingnore that. Or is it
a
> >> bad case of denial?
> >>
> >
> >Averaging bad data will simply give you a bad average. Are you familiar
> >with the GIGO principle.
>
> If machine A is misidentified as a webserver, but is infact a firewall,
it's
> uptime is still relevent for a general stability datapoint.
>
If Machine A is Unix and Machine B is NT and Machine A responds to Machine
B's request the statistics attributed Machine B will be actually the
statistics of machine A.
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 02:06:47 GMT
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92dbdf$kdu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <92c13p$m11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Here is independent evidence the supports my claim that w2k is
> unstable:
> >
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.microsoft.com
> >
> > Even MS has problems keeping W2K up and running! Just over 12 days
> > average uptime!
>
> Or is that 12 days average of their firewall? Or could it be set of
> clustered servers?
>
Thanks Stuart, I was getting bored with Matt, you play with him now.
>
> 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
******************************
