Linux-Advocacy Digest #166, Volume #31 Mon, 1 Jan 01 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? (Terry Porter)
Re: Uptimes ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Uptimes ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Uptimes ("Tom Wilson")
LCSDNYR 2001 -> standards, standards, standards (JAR)
Happy New Year~ (СºýÍ¿³æ¡¤ÏàÍüÓÚ½ºþ¡«)
Re: Could only... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Why Hatred? (mlw)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Suggestions for Linux ("Donn Miller")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Donn Miller")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: 01 Jan 2001 04:16:09 GMT
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:11:05 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Smith wrote:
>
>> So, it's ok for Linux users to hate Windows, but not Windows users to hate
>> Linux? Can you spell "hypocrite"?
>
>I think what strikes most people as odd is that the windows
>trolls hang out in Linux newsgroups and spew bs.
Its sad isnt it ?
> Don't you
>guys have a life or something?
Hahaha nope they have their lemming like love of Windows
instead.
> I mean, I can't be bothered to
>spend any time in windows newsgroups,i
Same here, I simply don't use Windows, it's not a concern to me.
> but you windows
>trolls are obsessed with hanging out here and lowering the
>signal-noise ratio... don't you have some sort of microsoft
>newsgroups where you can hang out and tell each other
>stories about how you hate Linux?
They didnt create Windows, theyre users only, I doubt
they could get such a thing of the ground ?
Comlaining is easy, *doing* is quite another thing!
>
>jjs
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 04:31:43 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 07:06:33
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Tom Hall in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:40:54
> >> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:2m636.4445$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Ooh, quick, lets spread that "fact" so we can pretend to have refuted
> >> the numbers (again). It is really pretty amazing how far you
> >> Micro-softheads are willing to go to spread dis-information.
> >
> >Questioning statistics isn't exclusively the right of Microsoft fanatics.
> >I base my opinions not on Netcraft numbers, but with prior experience.
> >
> >Non-MS OS's have better uptimes.
> >
> >Period.
> >
> >End of story.
> >
> >Thank you and goodnight.
>
> My apologies. I obviously did get hot-headed, and misinterpreted your
> remark. When you mentioned http headers, I presumed you were
> misrepresenting the issue, since http headers aren't related, it
> appears, to Netcraft's numbers (or Uptime's numbers).
You have me confused with someone else, I'm afraid. Up until now, i've only
given this thread a few short comments as I feel the whole issue is foolish.
I do agree with the http header's non-relationship, though. However, I admit
that I'm ignorant of some of the methods discussed and that I'm by no means
an authority on the issue.
> To rely on "prior
> experience" and ignore statistical evidence is no more superior an
> approach than the opposite.
>From an analytical standpoint, true.
>From a practical standpoint, I find the experience approach , more often
than not, produces accurate results. If you've bad experiences with a
product line over an entire decade, the smart money is on continued
headaches when you use them again.
Non-scientific, but, consistently accurate none-the-less. Especially when MS
is part of the equation.
> You are correct that questioning statistics
> isn't exclusively the right (or habit) Microsoft defenders, but I would
> further add that confusing the ability to question the statistics with
> having invalidated the statistics is, indeed, something I expect to see
> more often from those who aren't intelligent enough to recognize
> crapware for what it is.
It seems no-one can be impartial about statistics. Either you believe them
(or how they are represented) or you discount them altogether regardless of
the source or presentation. So much lying and spinning with numbers occurs
that most tend to take the latter approach.
__
Tom Wilson.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 04:57:52 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:ZVA36.799$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Questioning statistics isn't exclusively the right of Microsoft
fanatics.
> >> I base my opinions not on Netcraft numbers, but with prior experience.
> >>
> >> Non-MS OS's have better uptimes.
> >>
> >> Period.
> >>
> >> End of story.
> >
> >Well, I have dissimilar experiences. I've had Linux boxes crash dialy,
and
> >NT systems stay up months. I've also seen it the other way around as
well.
>
> I'm afraid it must be pointed out that, given your historical
> credibility, your personal experience doesn't have the same value, to
> you or to anyone else, that Tom's does.
I've heard too many other similar woes about NT to conclude that mine was an
exceptional case. I'm not about to call Erik a liar as I'm not familiar with
him, but I meet any pro-NT testimonial with a healthy dose of skepticism. He
may, indeed, be one of the lucky few who have had consistent success with
it. I don't know.
>
> >All this proves is that your own experience is not the reality of
everyone.
>
> But it damn well better be compatible with the reality of everyone, or
> else you're just being deluded. Having personal experience with NT
> staying up in some arbitrary implementation is not incompatible with
> reality. Believing that it means NT is not crapware, however, requires
> denying too many other people's knowledge and experience.
Literal hoards of admins and developers wouldn't be pronouncing it as such
if the basis for the claim were not present. I'm not above admitting that
some complaints are fictitious and meant only to tweek selected noses. I
assure you that my posts are not in that vein.
>
> Regardless, I think everyone here has probably already learned to be
> wary when Erik Funkenbusch uses the word "proves".
The very word, in most cases, is incorrectly applied.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:09:45 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
As I pointed out in the follow-up post, you can't instantly assume a server
problem if the network goes down. Any link in the chain can be at fault. I'd
far rather be there to ascertain, with certainty, what a given problem is -
Especially when paying customers are relying on said network being up.
Only after the line problems were corrected, and the server hardware tested
ad-infinitum did NT and IIS became the issue.
>
> >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.
It seems expecting a server to stay up and perform reliably and with as
little intervention as possible is a non-sequitor to some.
<snip>
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JAR)
Subject: LCSDNYR 2001 -> standards, standards, standards
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:18:16 GMT
LCSDNYR = Linux Community of Software Developers New Years Resolution
(for 2001 and beyond).
The Linux Community of Developers should get together, formulate and
agree on MINIMAL SET OF STANDARDS for Linux Software. The world
revolves around standards -- like the modern calendar and temperature
measurement. Standards are VERY important in every facet we deal with
on a daily basis.
This is a call to the Linux Community of Developers to standardize AT
LEAST these portions of Linux software….
1. Installation of software
2. Removal of software
3. Upgrading of software
4. Maintaining configuration files for installed software
The processes should be STANDARD ACROSS THE BOARD. NO deviation as is
historic with the UNIX world. We have surpassed that mind set. It is
not just for gurus any more. On a whim, these things should be easy
to accomplish (read my lips in the README & INSTALL files… EZ = Easy =
Painless = Less Headache = Less ASS pain = Not everyone is a lib,
kernal, make, hacker, whatever script to make it work, that knows
everything, has plenty of time to figure it out kind of a person ).
A simple concept. A no brainer. Installing / Uninstalling /
Configuration & Maintenance of software should be like falling of the
log backwards….. Got it? Then Get it! Period. If you build it, they
will come…. just isn't true with desktop users (maybe so with servers,
but then the true addicts will defect to BSD kingdom somewhere along
the line) There has got to be more to it; it must be, oh no not the
bad words -- USER FRIENDLY… and unless the greater Linux community
learns what this is, Wintel will always be on top.
Just my rant …. Let the flames begin. But there should not be any.
If you flame standards at a very basic level then you need to defrag
your brain, slurp some coffee and smell the roses. All proactive Linux
supporters should encourage some sort of uniformity as defined by
users and not the hardcore programmer.
PS thanks to all you Linux hackers, programmers, developers, artist,
etc… And Long live Linus Torvalds the honorary king of the OS's and
Open Source Software (OSS) Greetings and Happy New Year 01
James Ross
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (СºýÍ¿³æ¡¤ÏàÍüÓÚ½ºþ¡«)
Subject: Happy New Year~
Date: 01 Jan 2001 05:04:01 GMT
When will RedHat release RedHat7.1?
--
[1;33mºþÆøÀäÈç±ù£¬Ô¹âµÓÚÑ©¡£
¿ÏÆúÓëÈý̶£¬º¼È˲»¿´Ô¡£
[m[1;36m¡ù À´Ô´:¡õÔÂÓ¡Èý̶BBS bbs.hutuworm.org¡õ[FROM: 61.164.176.130][m
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:35:19 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > <snype>
> > Also, just under 20 years ago, the set of legislation under
> > the banner, "Separate, but equal" was removed from southern states,
>
> laws enacted from the supposedly non-racist American Democrat party.
One of the most idiotic and demeaning policies ever put forward, I might
add.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:53:44 -0500
John Smith wrote:
>
> So, it's ok for Linux users to hate Windows, but not Windows users to hate
> Linux? Can you spell "hypocrite"?
Ok, you tell me. What reason would a windows user have to hate Linux? It
is not as if they are forced to use it. It isn't as if it is something
they even have to deal with.
Linux users, on the other hand, have all pretty much been exposed to
Windows and have formed an opinion about it, most of them think Windows
sucks for various reasons. I don't disagree, and I think Windows and NT
suck for various but different reasons.
So again, why would a Windows user even have an opinion about Linux?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 06:15:30 GMT
"JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Come on.... I thought the technicalities of server logging were common
> knowledge around these parts. If it is too difficult for you to understand
> you have no business arguing the validity of standard http client/server
> data exchanges.
>
> You can start by getting a server, making HTTP GET requests upon it and
> inspecting your logs to see what info is being exchanged.
>
So what this shows is that web sites where the designer wants a counter
and is incapable of making his own are not particularly interesting
to Linux users....
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 01:36:13 -0500
"Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:OMRZ5.746$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What has Microsoft produced that they didn't copy?
Good point. Windows NT (probably) isn't even an original kernel design;
it's VMS. But, I must give Microsoft credit for the whole "Start" button
idea. What a stroke of genius. Also, the whole idea of putting buttons on
the bottom of the screen in a task bar may be original, provided they didn't
copy it from CDE. I should point about that KDE and GNOME basically
duplicate the Windows GUI of having a "Start" button complete with cascading
menus on the bottom left of the screen. So, non-Microsoft parties are
sometimes guilty of copying MS ideas. The truly original idea for GUI's was
probably the Next. Not exactly user-friendly for first-time computer users,
but it at least it was 100% innovative.
OK, I'm no MS advocate. But, I think I am at least objective. You may
stone me now.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 02:06:17 -0500
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:peP36.4629$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't fear Linux. In fact, I run my web server under Linux. I simply
> don't find Linux useful as a desktop system today, and get annoyed when
> Linux zealots insist that Linux can replace Windows today. It can't. If
it
> could, I'd be using it.
> Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's
not
> going to be able to replace Windows. Yeah, there are tools like
linuxconf,
> but I find these tools to be brittle and break easily.
The fact is that Windows and unix variants such as Linux represent two
entirely different cultures and philosphies. I feel that GUI sysadmin tools
under unix systems such as Linux are pointless, because the entire unix
culture relies on editing config files by hand that are well-documented with
comments and are very "human readable". Windows, OTOH, has config files
that are designed to be "machine generated" instead of human-readable, like
with unix.
One of many problems with Windows is that it is a proprietary standard. For
example, it's pretty difficult to port a program from Windows directly to
Solaris. OTOH, all unix systems are similar in that it's pretty easy to
port a program from Linux to FreeBSD and Solaris with little difficulty, as
long as there are no low-level obstacles. This is due in part to the fact
that unix systems are set up very similar. For example, all unices have man
pages, and a C runtime library (libc) with basically a fairly common subset
of functions. All have socket(), connect(), read(), and write(), for
example. Windows, OTOH, has it's own variants of these commands. For
example, I don't know if Win98 directly supports the open() function. You
pretty much have to use OpenFile(), which is tied to Windows' GUI. Also,
Windows doesn't use connect() AFAIK, but a WinSock implementation of this
syscall. So now on the network side of things, you've got to do some
translating between standard unix socket calls and the equivalent WinSock
calls.
I'm much more at ease knowing that I'm programming on a system that is a
standard. But, how exactly do you acheive an "open standard" with a
Windows-type OS? "Well, it has a very weak CLI interface, and is 99% GUI
driven, and the Windowing system has it's own built-in widget set and is
closely intimated with the kernel". Heck, it's very hard to acheive a
standard like that! Let's see, Windows, BeOS, and MacOS would fall into
that category. Yet, they don't seem as compatible with each other as the
unix variants (FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux) are.
It's only natural that we programmers should choose a standard over a
proprietary system, which is why I like unix systems better than Windows.
OK, let's try this thought experiment. Microsoft releases the source code
to all their products, including Windows 98, ME, NT, 2000, etc. They also
release all the internal documents regarding Windows NT and 98's
architecture and design. The two questions I have then are as follows:
1.) Would Windows NT and 98 be established as an open standard?
2.) What would happen to Microsoft in terms of revenue? Well, one obvious
conclusion would be that Microsoft's earnings would drop like a rock. But,
if they could somehow copy RedHat, SuSE, and Corel's business model, I think
they could stay afloat, but their monetary value would sink faster than the
Titanic. This is because now, see, MS has just released the source code to
their products, effectively making them open source. They could no longer
be the only vendor selling and supporting Windows, because now Company X,
whomever that may be, could make their own Windows disribution, modify it to
their liking, and sell it with support. If Microsoft were truly innovative,
they could survive and still pull in a healty profit with that scenario.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
