Linux-Advocacy Digest #162, Volume #31 Sun, 31 Dec 00 19:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Nick Saxon")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 23:26:24 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> > All this proves is that your own experience is not the reality of
>> everyone.
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> It just goes to show how bogus some of these debates actually are.
>> You weren't expecting that answer, huh?
>> [...]Turns out the
>> head honcho had his fair share of NT run-ins too. Marching to an office in
>> fuzzy slippers is something we prefer not to do again!
>
>This is a rather silly argument. Even if we were to take at face value that
>your experience with NT has been such, there is absolutely no reason you
>should have to drive somewhere to reboot the server.
There are lots of reasons; are you saying it was possible, or that it
wasn't necessary? Because, obviously, it was necessary for him,
regardless of your posturing to the contrary.
>If it were really a problem, there are any number of solutions to the
>problem, some of them hardware based, some of them software based (for
>instance, you might have a watchdog machine that does HTTP requests
>periodically and if the server fails to respond for any length of time, it
>does a remote reboot. If the system is blue screened, then you can tell NT
>to reboot automatically on a blue screen. If the entire server is locked up
>(even network services), something i've never seen that wasn't hardware
>related (bad memory, failed hard drive with swap partiiton on it, etc..),
>then you could spend a few hundred dollars on a remote power cycle switch if
>you're that paranoid.
We all know this is so. Most of us, as well, know why it is empty
posturing. The Unix method, making sure the system doesn't go down to
begin with, is generally much more appropriate. And in those cases
where it isn't enough, Unix still has far more complete and effective
mechanisms for remote administration, despite all this "there are any
number of solutions" mumbo-jumbo. Again, we don't deny they are
available; we deny they are preferable.
>None of these solutions requires you to go anywhere in the middle of the
>night, and any shop that was worried about such problems and doesn't use
>these techniqes or something similar ones isn't worth what you're paying
>them.
So apparently none of those solutions (if they even work reliably as
advertised) were in place. Having already gotten the "Erik
second-guessing someone" out of the way, I guess now's as good a time as
any to point out that nobody but Microsoft apologists (for such is what
they are) have any need to even double-check which solutions Tom had
available, or why. It is enough for us to know that it means NT is an
inferior solution to begin with.
>You might argue that they should be unnecessary, and i'd agree.
>However, I have seen shops where their own apps had memory leaks or other
>problems that would eventually cause the server to stop responding (using up
>all memory is a good way to do that, even in Unix (yes, yes.. I know about
>ulimits, i'm just making a point)).
Not a very good one. More like empty posturing, rather than making a
point, if you ask me. Yes, yes, I know... you didn't. ;-)
--
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, 31 Dec 2000 23:26:26 GMT
Said Adam Ruth in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:27:05
[Chad Myers:]
>> All of this arguing, on both sides, is speculative. None of us knows,
>> beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the numbers are accurate or inaccurate.
>>
>> Without a audit by a professional auditing firm, we would really never
>> know how accurate their algorithm for determining uptime is.
>>
>> Given that they can't really determine the OS of the webserver or even
>> the web server platform itself with any great reliability, it stands
>> to reason that their uptime methods are questionable as well.
>
>Of course it's is speculative, and of course they could be wrong, and of
>course... blah blah blah. But if we had to go around auditing every piece
>of data that came floating our way, we'd never get anything done. The point
>is that we can know, reasonably well, that their numbers are relatively
>accurate.
I'm afraid you're giving too much ground, there, Adam. In point of
fact, Net craft's numbers are known to be accurate, and no amount of
post-modernist speculation has provided any reason to doubt them.
Chad's statement "it stands to reason" is entirely false, as the fact
that occasionally getting the OS wrong would only provide any reason to
question the uptime statistics if these times when Netcraft was
imperfect in its ability to identify OS were shown to show uptimes. So
far, all examples of inaccurate OS reporting have been most specifically
lacking in any uptime statistics at all.
>How? By looking at a sample. There are so many people that read these
>newsgroups, and so many people that work on websites, that the veracity (or
>lack of same) should be easily verifiable in a few instances. Since no one
>has yet to come forward with a site that they know is incorrect (and some
>people have claimed to work on sites that they 'know' will fool Necraft),
>then it's reasonable to assume that the numbers are somewhat accurate.
Again, I can only quibble about that "somewhat accurate" phrase. I
don't believe there is such a thing; a metric is either accurate or it
is not. I believe you're thinking more about *precision*, rather than
accuracy. They're not really the same thing.
>How accurate? That we'll never know, but no one said that we should live or
>die by these numbers. No one, that I'm aware of, has claimed that these
>numbers should be taken as gospel. A lot of people claim that they should
>be totally ignored, but these are the same people who only offer hypotheses
>as to why they should be ignored, never showing a site where the uptime
>numbers are incorrect or where the uptime numbers match a different OS than
>reported. Only sites that 'may indicate that other sites may be wrong'.
>Fine, your opinion is just as valid as mine, but it's just that: an opinion.
>Until you can show some evidence of some kind (something not
>circumstantial), it will remain an opinion.
An opinion which is not a reasoned opinion is not an opinion; it is a
fabrication. It is a fabrication to say that Netcraft's numbers are not
accurate. Reason alone may not provide the statistics the veracity of
"gospel", but it does make them perfectly refutable, yet entirely
unrefuted. Which is to say, they are completely accurate, unless
someone provides real evidence to the contrary. As you said, despite
repetitive and insistent attempts, nobody's been able to provide even a
hint of such evidence.
--
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, 31 Dec 2000 23:26:27 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
>"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]Since no one
>> has yet to come forward with a site that they know is incorrect (and some
>> people have claimed to work on sites that they 'know' will fool Necraft),
>> then it's reasonable to assume that the numbers are somewhat accurate.
>
>No one has come forward and said that the numbers *are* correct, either.
You are, once again, incorrect. Even if we discount (for no reason but
that we don't want their results to be true) Netcraft's own assertion
that their numbers are correct, others have corroborated them, and a
list of "verified" sites was posted in this thread a couple days ago.
--
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: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 23:30:59 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
> >> 14:53:53 -0700;
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why would *ANY* American consider it frightening to do so?
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, here we have the classic kind of bullshit, soft-headed,
> >> >> transparently moronic argument that Republicans and right-wingers of
all
> >> >> stripes typically use.
> >> >
> >> >Ah, yes. Let's not start without the obligatory personal attacks.
> >>
> >> I have no choice but to see almost every action of a Republican as a
> >> personal attack;
Now that's a rational attitude, isn't it?
> >
> >You do have a choice, Max.
> >
> >> it is an self-preservation mechanism.
Paranoid schitzophrenia?
> >
> >It is a self-destructive attitude. It turns you mind off.
>
> Which is why I would avoid it, if I could. But the last time I ignored
> my instincts and supported Republicans, they screwed things up Big Time.
>
> >> No; my definitions are derived from reason,
> >
> >No they're not. The choice you made (as stated above), created your
> >definitions.
>
> Blah blah blah. Next time, wait two sentences before sniping, if you're
> this lost.
How is he lost?
> >> They are supported by reason and facts;
> >
> >No, they're not. You have not presented facts, you've made
> >unsupported accusations, used personal attacks, and in general
> >made no presentation of any reasoning what so ever.
>
> I didn't say I presented facts, I said my opinions were supported by
> facts.
Which you convieniently neglect to bring forward...
> I'm getting very bored with your sniping, though, and the
> supposition that I have no facts because you wish there to be no facts
> opposing the idea that Republicans are Good and Democrats are Bad is
> enough to make me give up this charade.
Bye.
> I wish I could say "thanks for your time." I wish it would help.
We've certainly wasted enough of it on you...and it obviously isn't helping
anyone.
Hope the voices in your head have something nice to say soon...
--
Tom Wilson
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:29:57 -0700
> There is no way that a custom client for uptime.net would have any
> problems with the counter rollover, whether its 49.7 days or 497. If
> they have a way to set how long the computer has been running so far,
> its because that value is meaningless; its the continuity of the
> counter, not its starting value, which provides the information. But it
> does seem pretty outrageous if they use the entered value, rather than
> the start of the client, in the numbers they post about how long a
> particular computer has been up. I would not believe this is the case
> without some reasoned support or evidence, simply because it so
> obviously makes any metric from uptime.net entirely valueless for
> showing how long someone else's system has been up, and one would figure
> there are easier ways to lie to yourself about your own uptimes.
That is actually how it works, but only for 98/ME machines. From the
readme:
"The "Wraps" box appares only on Win9x/ME systems, and is for machines
with uptimes of more than 49.7 days. As you may already know, thanks to
Microsoft's brilliant (heh) coding practices, Windows resets the system
uptime counter to zero after 49.7 days. This means that the client
thinks you have 0 uptime, even though you really have over 49 days of
uptime. To solve this problem, you can manually enter the number of
times your system has passed that 49.7 day reset, and the client will
compensate accordingly."
The actual absolute starting date must be available somewhere in NT (might
be the event log or boot.ini, I'm not sure) since it too has the 49.7 day
problem. Looks like there is no reliable way to the the reboot date on
98/ME. But that shouldn't matter, there aren't many of these machines
around and I really don't think anyone finds them stable enough for any real
server duties.
Adam Ruth
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 16:31:05 -0700
> zdnet did a year long test of windows nt and linux, running
> their office server tasks. In one year the Linux servers did
> not crash once. the windows nt servers crashed 13 times.
Could you point me to an article on that? That sounds really interesting.
Adam Ruth
------------------------------
From: "Nick Saxon" <n-dot-saxon-at-mindspring-dot-com>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:36:18 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: "Nick Saxon" <n-dot-saxon-at-mindspring-dot-com>
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:26:49 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Nick Saxon wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 01:09:18 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> >Nick Saxon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:22:35 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Gary Hallock wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > IBM makes GREAT hardware.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There standards for software (usability and efficiency), on
>> >> >> > the other hand, tend to be quite low.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ever use VM/CMS?
>> >> >> > XEDIT
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Bleaaaaaaaah!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For an editor that runs on a non-graphical 3270, xedit is quite powerful,
>> >> >> especially with its rexx macro support. I've used it for many years,
>> >> >> long before it became part of the product. There are even a number of
>> >> >> Unix based look-alikes.
>> >> >
>> >> >Any editor which, when editing an existing file, REQUIRES you to
>> >> >"delete" non-existing characters from the end of a line before you
>> >> >can append text to that line is a piece of dain-bread deficient trash.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I hate to say this, but... RTFM!
>> >>
>> >
>> >I need to Read the manual to learn how to turn off this behavior?
>>
>> You need to read the manual to learn that there is a hundred of options.
>> Can you imagine a magic default profile that suits all?
>
>
>You still have not answered the goddamned fucking question...
>
>Why is this UTTERLY FUCKING ANNOYING AND RETARDEED BEHAVIOR the *default*??????
No need to shout... at least at me! I'm NOT a xedit developer. And I think I
have answered your
question: it's impossible to create a default profile that suits all users.
It's supposed that you
review your profile and change it to your needs and taste. What's wrong with
such an approach?
You don't have to do it every morning. Consider it being a part of
installation procedure.
Don't you like every piece of software to be flexible?
Nick
>
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>DNRC Minister of all I survey
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:43:32 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Well, I have dissimilar experiences. I've had Linux boxes crash dialy,
>
> Sorry, that's just not beleivable -
Therein lies the problem with Linux zealots. They refuse to believe that
Linux can be unstable.
Likewise, I know that Windows NT *CAN* be unstable, but I also know that it
*CAN* be very stable if you know what you're doing. Windows 2000 is just
stable period.
> For instance:
>
> zdnet did a year long test of windows nt and linux, running
> their office server tasks. In one year the Linux servers did
> not crash once. the windows nt servers crashed 13 times.
Do you have a link to this?
> In our own shop: we have Linux servers that handle mail, dns,
> network monitoring, web serving. They have been up for about
> 200 days (last booted to install new kernel) and had been up
> for about 6 months before that. They simply do not crash.
>
> OTOH there are windows nt boxes doing pretty similar
> stuff and need to be rebooted nightly.
Gee, if your server needs to be rebooted nightly, yet zdnet only had
problems (according to you) once a month, why is that?
> > All this proves is that your own experience is not the reality of
everyone.
>
> No, it proves that windows trolls are willing to say anything
> to try to discredit those OSes that they see as a threat.
Look. I use NT and 2000 daily for software development. I put my machines
through hell, and routinely go months without rebooting. Occasionally I do
have a crash, but this is because i'm doing driver development.
My Linux machines are pretty stable as well in most cases, but I've had
Netscape lock them up tighter than a drum (Even the keyboard interrupts were
not responding). It wasn't just X locked up, because I couldn't telnet in
and the web server was not responding.
It is a fact that all OS's can be unstable in the right circumstances.
Period.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:46:08 -0600
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92n1ld$2s9$07$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JSPL wrote:
>
> > I personally can't stand running Win9x for more than ten minutes because
> > it always does something unpredictable (hang, crash, whatever). Then
again
> > so did Linux Mandrake till I erased it and put Win2k pro back in, which
> > ALWAYS runs flawlessly. I'm currently checking out Whistler and have to
> > say it shall (due to quality) put the slap down on all desktop
competition
> > for years to come. I can hear the weeping and wailing of the Linux
>
> Well that is something we have heard many times already from
win-advocates.
> The NEXT version of win will be the do all, perfect OS which everyone will
> use. when it was pointet out that NT4 is just shit, win-advocates say
> win2000 is the real answer (I flatly refuse to install it, although as a
> programmer i also have to do programming for windows).
You seem quite closed minded.
> Did you know that in
> certain parts of Germany and in the christian churches of germany it is
NOT
> allowed to use win2000 for security reasons ?
No. Germany refuses to use Win2k because the disk defragmenter is made by a
company which is run by a scientologist. It's purely a political reason,
not a security one.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:02:17 -0600
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92of87$6mo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No one has come forward and said that the numbers *are* correct, either.
>
> Sure they have. I have noted 5 different servers with the correct times
> showing:
Really?
> www.intercation.com
Average uptime of 7 days. Not very good if true.
> www.runreports.com
"We have been monitoring www.runreports.com, but have not been able to
detect uptime values"
Says it's running under NT3/95, yet it's running IIS4. Strange, since IIS4
is in NT4.
> www.nvisioncorp.com
24 days uptime. Still not impressive if true.
> www.shytei.com
"We have been monitoring www.shytei.com, but have not been able to detect
uptime values"
> www.firstsecuritybank.com
"The host www.firstsecuritybank.com site is in our database of monitored
hosts, and we have started to monitor it, but we do not yet have a
sufficient number of samples to plot an uptime chart for
www.firstsecuritybank.com. "
> That's 5 more than none.
Given that 3 of your sites have no uptimes listed at all under netcraft, how
can put any faith that the 2 that are listed are correct according to you?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:03:57 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
> >"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> [...]Since no one
> >> has yet to come forward with a site that they know is incorrect (and
some
> >> people have claimed to work on sites that they 'know' will fool
Necraft),
> >> then it's reasonable to assume that the numbers are somewhat accurate.
> >
> >No one has come forward and said that the numbers *are* correct, either.
>
> You are, once again, incorrect. Even if we discount (for no reason but
> that we don't want their results to be true) Netcraft's own assertion
> that their numbers are correct, others have corroborated them, and a
> list of "verified" sites was posted in this thread a couple days ago.
Obviously you didn't bother to actually check those "verified sites"
yourself, did you?
You would have seen that some of them list no uptimes at all at netcraft,
thus the list is bogus.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
