Linux-Advocacy Digest #310, Volume #31 Sat, 6 Jan 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (Pyrrus)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Craig Kelley)
Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (Pyrrus)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant, but Windows is pure junk! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Advocacy? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!! (ZHN)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Where can I get good info on setting up Linux (ZHN)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Uptimes ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pyrrus)
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Reply-To: pyrrusATnerdherdDOTorg
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 03:12:49 GMT
Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>That's the price of IGNORANCE...which is what Microsoft is all about...
>>
>
>
>Although it is not easy to find real internal modems anymore - whenever
>anyone asks me to recommend a modem I tell them to look for a 56k
>external as then you can be more sure what you are getting (plus they
>are easier to install for users who know very little about computers and
>can be moved to a different machine if needed).
>From my experiences, Rockwell modems work well (and work with linux)
because they have jumpers so you can configure them yourself. When
I bought a modem, there were the $90 USR winmodems, and the rockwell
modem, which cost me $20.
--
"I will not expose the ignorance of the facility" -Bart Simpson
"Mom and dad, I think you ought to quit smoking so much pot" -NOFX
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: 06 Jan 2001 20:11:34 -0700
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you show me the virus for NT that can damage other people's file on
> NTFS?
Sure, just use one of the many applications that require Everyone
(Full Access) to a directory, save your file there, and you're done.
You could make this even easier by using Omnipage Pro, which requires
Administrator access to even run.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 03:17:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 05 Jan 2001 03:37:19 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> References: stripped of whitespace. Odd, whatever did that.
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:53:08 -0500
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Gary Hallock wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> > Keeping your hands on the keyboard is a bad thing now?
>> >>
>> >> It is not intuitive.
>> >
>> >NOTHING is intuitive....especially computers and software.
>>
>> Unless Tholen says so, of course. :-)
>>
>> [rest snipped]
>
>did you know that you can filter out Tholen-crap for MONTHS at
>a time by merely filtering out any post with the word "digest" in
>the Subject line?
(chuckles)
No...but I rarely filter things anyway, at least at the
newsreader level. (My mind, on the other hand, does
a lot of filtering. :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 96 days, 1:19, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pyrrus)
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Reply-To: pyrrusATnerdherdDOTorg
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 03:20:54 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Said pub10.ezboard.com web2news.pl in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 2
>
>Christ, thank god I'm not still a Libertarian. They get more clueless
>every year.
They had some good ideas going for them with citizens rights and freedom,
but then they just became laizze-fair, "let's just sweep evidence of corporate
opression under the carpet" attitude.
--
"I will not expose the ignorance of the facility" -Bart Simpson
"Mom and dad, I think you ought to quit smoking so much pot" -NOFX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant, but Windows is pure junk!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 03:23:21 GMT
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 03:02:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>It's not clear that Windows is much better, although with the built-in
>GUI elements (pulldown menus, scrollbars, etc.), it can look much
>more slickly polished. But underneath, it's the same old glop,
>not unlike giving a Trabant or Lada a shiny metallic paint job and
>trying to race a Ferrari, or at least an old beat-up-looking but
>well-maintained and smoothly running Chevy. To make the analogy
>even better, it's not a stock Chevy, either, but a Chevy with
>a Mac Truck motor, a Ford transmission, a hemi sticking through a
>hole in the hood, super-beefy shocks, struts, and springs -- in fact,
>the general appearance is that of the vehicle in _Mad Max_ which Mad
>Max drove after his wife was killed. Granted, it still looks
>like a car -- but it's an ugly sucker. And yet -- it can run
>rings around a Trabant. (Another variant might look like that
>even uglier homemade helicopter - but that worked pretty well, too.)
I won't disagree that technically, on paper, the Windows platform has
a lot to be desired and the Mac platform even more, but when the end
results are tabulated they both come out on top because of the
support, consistency and applications albeit at the cost of technical
superiority.
>OK, enough with the silly analogies. :-)
I thought you were pretty close :)
>Part of *nix's reliability may simply be the management of
>resource handles. In Unix (and Linux), if one wants a resource,
>one does one of two things.
>
>[1] Memory is allocated and initialized in the local address space.
> In other words, it's owned by the process, to have and to hold
> until said process' death.
>[2] An integer is handed back from a kernel routine, which is
> effectively owned by the process. This integer is typically
> small and positive, or perhaps non-negative, and can even
> be checked when handed about to different routines, to ensure
> that it's valid.
>
>In NT, [2] appears to be rarely used, and it is not clear that the
>allocated memory in [1] is always owned by the process. Therefore,
>woe betide the process that doesn't follow the allocation rules to
>the letter! Windows 95 is even worse, although it tries hard to
>emulate NT.
>
>(Side note: in older Mac operating systems, MacOS did a lot
>of handle-to-pointer-to-structure management, to give it
>the option of keeping memory defragmented by moving around
>the structures (one merely changes the pointer in the handle).
>This is an old design, no longer needed by modern operating
>systems which assign each process its own virtual address space.
>I don't know what Windows 3.1 and Win95 did regarding this sort
>of thing, though. Note also that the Amiga, if anyone still remembers
>it, didn't bother with handles, but just returned a pointer to
>more or less shared memory, which anyone could tromp on.
>But everyone knew this, :-) and it was a well-documented system
>which eventually got the bugs engineered out. I hope it comes back.)
>
>This appears, to me at least, to be a design decision that is
>partly responsible for various issues within NT and Windows,
>and the lack of those same issues in Linux.
>
>X is an interesting animal, as well, compared to Win32. X is an
>old design (ca. 1980's or so; I don't know when MIT first came out
>with X10, then X11), but was intended at the outset to work with
>networking, as far as I can tell. This transparency introduces
>some interesting quirks in the design (for example, one cannot
>determine precisely when something will be drawn unless one
>uses XFlush() or XSync(), and even then the server may hesitate
>in drawing; the selection protocol is straightforward, but not
>intuitive; colormap management is straightforward, but slightly
>peculiar, although newer versions of X attempt to work around
>that, possibly by using round-robin allocations of named colors when
>possible; bitmap issues can be done either on the server side (slow
>on Linux) or the client side (faster on Linux unless going across
>the network).)
>
>It's not clear what an X window is (the Window or Drawable type), since
>all one gets is a rather cryptic handle -- it's not even a small
>integer -- but it doesn't really matter; the server is charged with
>checking all things coming in and it knows all the windows it creates,
>for it creates them (on request). A bunged handle can be detected
>and ignored.
>
>The Xlib side is on the client, and is the usual memory allocation
>issue; while it may corrupt itself, throwing the process into an
>unknown state, the X server, which is also protecting itself from
>bad info, won't do weird things if the Xlib completely goes south, or
>the user tries to get cute and send things directly over the wire.
>(A number of programs do just that.)
>
>Another illustration may be the management of X Graphics Contexts
>versus Hardware Drawing Contexts. In X, if one wants to change
>the color of a GC prior to drawing a line, one has to:
>
>- find the right color (XAllocColor(), XAllocNamedColor())
>- issue an XSetForeground() call to the GC
>- draw the line(s), polygons, text, what have you
>
>GCs are limited (they are implemented as pointers), but not shareable
>across programs as far as I know; in any event, X does not have any
>elegant methods by which to hand a GC from one process to another.
>Note that the machinery is complicated by various queueing issues
>(the XSetForeground() call is queued up along with the drawing codes),
>but this usually doesn't cause problems and is transparent to the
>casual developer.
>
>It is left up to the program to decide whether to restore the GC,
>and it's usually not that big of a deal.
>
>Win32, by contrast, is terrible. If one wants to change the color
>of a Hardware Drawing Context prior to drawing a line, one has to:
>
>- find the right color (RGB() macro; I'm not sure if there's a
> method in Windows to select colors by name -- if there is,
> I haven't found it yet)
>- create the pen (CreatePen())
>- select the pen, noting that the previous pen is in fact returned
> (SelectObject()).
>- hold onto the old pen as long as necessary, while drawing things
> (MoveToEx(), LineTo(), TextOut())
>- return the saved pen when done (SelectObject() again), and
>- destroy the pen created (DeleteObject()).
>
>Failure to follow these rules precisely may result in memory leaks,
>or worse. Note also that there's a CreatePen(), but no DeletePen();
>this is admittedly a minor issue, but it would be nice to balance
>the two. (I suspect a number of developers simply define a
>macro or create a DeletePen() which simply calls DeleteObject().)
>
>HDCs may or may not be owned by a single program, but this sort of
>behavior -- which also applies to brushes and fonts -- is typical
>of Win32 protocol.
>
>One nice thing about Windows -- if implemented properly -- is
>that identical code can be used for drawing something on the
>screen, and later on printing it, or saving the results to a
>metafile (there is a code in the HDC somewhere). However, I
>would not be surprised that the implementation is lacking; font
>metrics, if not perfectly implemented, can lead to some strange things
>happening. This is probably less of a problem now than in the past,
>given modern raster hardware and TrueType fonts.
>
>X is horribly lacking here -- but it's not usually much of a problem.
>But it is something I miss. (I can compensate for it somewhat
>using Ghostscript metrics, which are shipped with Ghostscript
>fonts.)
>
>Windows also has a nice idea that got horribly bodged in the
>implementation. Developers can basically, using Visual Basic
>or Visual C++, create beautiful forms with buttons, gadgets,
>and what not (the idea is not new to Windows, of course; Motif
>and OpenLook also had GUI creators). So far, so good -- but the
>wedging occurs when one realizes that the resources are
>specified using absolute positioning; this means that, if someone
>changes a font, things look ridiculous. The Xt Intrinsics
>Xrm database is far cruder, and somewhat more limited -- but within
>those limitations, it works very well; it also has multilevel
>"hive"-type stuff even before Windows thought of the idea and
>bodged that as well, and it's more robustly implemented.
>In fact, the idea is almost identical to old-style Win3.1 .INI files.
>
>It's also been banged on for at least a decade; Motif is that old.
>
>A final comment, this on window management. In Windows, this appears
>to be a process-by-process issue, or perhaps thread-by-thread; this
>means that, if an application hangs (ceases to process input from
>the user event queue), one is sitting there staring at a
>beautifully-drawn but unresponsive window; if another window
>subsequently draws on top of it, one gets some horrible graphics.
>There's no way to move it out of the way; the only recourse is to
>kill the app -- and that only on Windows NT. Apps do have the option
>of starting another thread and dedicating it to window management --
>but not many apps bother.
>
>X, by contrast, has window management running in a totally separate
>process, and some safeguards should that process futz out.
>This means that a window under control of the window manager
>(most X windows are, and the WM is aware of just about everything
>going on) can be iconified out of the way, even if the app
>which manages redrawing of that window decides to go south.
>It's a simple design which works; the only drawback is if the
>window manager goes south as well, which usually results in
>a plethora of uniconified windows suddenly appearing sans frames
>on one's screen. Not much one can do about it -- but one can
>restart the window manager if one can find an open xterm, and the WM
>will then reiconify the windows.
>
>This means the window manager is simpler, too, and less likely
>to blow up. (I will note that there is a peculiarity on HP-UX --
>sorry, John W :-) -- that occasionally likes to hang HP's window
>manager (dtwm?), and X with it, somewhat. It's not clear where the
>flaw is here, and in any event, that's why one wants nice small
>window managers so that they don't have to page in and out.)
>
>OK, I'm coming out of the vehicle now, face all greasy from
>poking around in the innards. :-) It's clear that most users won't
>actually care whether it's typedef int (*XErrorHandler)(Display *,
>XErrorEvent*) or EXPORT CALLBACK WinMain, but some of the underlying
>structural elements may contribute to the stability or
>instability of a graphics system.
>
>I think that what you are complaining about here are various
>high-level user issues -- in other words, whether there's
>a scratch on the door as you get in to start the car.
>Granted, there can be problems, especially with Windows-specific
>hardware (Winmodems being especially vexing).
>
>>
>>I received my Mandrake update CD this week and decided to give
>>Mandrake 7.2 another whirl, partly because I am bored at the moment
>>and partly because I was hoping that this one was the big winner.
>
>Anecdotal evidence.
>
>["detailed log" snipped]
>
>I don't use Mandrake, so can't say whether it is accurate or not;
>therefore I'm snipping it. Sorry, FF.
>
>The last time I installed Redhat (6.2), I did it over the net, and
>it was extremely slick. Granted, I was helped by a high-speed
>net connection and no sound card, but once I had created the floppies
>and rebooted the machine, it pretty much installed itself.
>(This particular machine didn't even have a CD-ROM, and I did have
>some ticklish issues regarding IP address assignment for
>various reasons -- 'pump' and NT DHCP do not get along.)
>
>I understand that Mandrake is (or was) a RedHat derivative,
>but again, I haven't tried to do anything with it.
I left the quoted text because you took the time to post it and I
appreciate that. The problem arises amongst users however because we
are interested in the end result and not so much the means to an end.
Of course we are concerned when out ISP is down, or the print file
server or such, and maybe this is where Linux can be of use, but when
it comes to a desktop that is easily installed, has support, has
hardware, software, applications and a friend down the street to help
when it goes amok, Windows or possibly Mac is the ticket and Linux
isn't even in the same ballpark.
While the Linux people actually like compiling kernels, writing
scripts and hunting the net to figure out how to customize their
systems, we normal users prefer to use our computers and enjoy not
having to jump through hoops to make things work. An example is that
Linux Movie (Anti-Trust) that is being released by MGM in January.
Running Linux one can not even view the video clips because they are
in Quicktime 4.0 format. We as Windows users can, as well as the Mac
folks. We are not willing to settle for non-support of hardware and
software, yet the Linux folks make do with featureless and in some
cases downright hostile applications.
Granted they are free, but is that really the reason or is there a
deeper darker reason?
For every mainstream type application a Linux user can show me, I can
show him/her a far better overall solution running under Windows and
this is just off the top of my head.
Printers regularly come with copies of Adobe Photoshop and coupons to
get WordPerfect 2000 Office suite as well as many other programs for
free or little cost (check Lexmark for example). In reality nobody is
paying $495.00 (legally) for an Office suite, so the free stuff that
is for the most part unstable and hostile under Linux, takes on a
whole new meaning. Also much of this free software for Linux is
available for Windows as well (StarOffice for example) yet virtually
nobody is using it?
Why is that?
So anyway, I don't know what the solution is but I don't see Linux
being on the desktop anytime soon.
Windows and Mac are just so far ahead in that arena it isn't even
close.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 22:23:29 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Andres Soolo wrote:
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Drive letters are a microsoft pee cee feature,
> Don't give them too much credit for it.
> CP/M had drive letters first.
>
Actually, VM/CMS had them before CP/M
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ZHN)
Date: 07 Jan 2001 03:25:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!!
I get it this is a joke right? No one could really be this stupid right? Still
dont get it.
>
>linux usings being fagit who don't know real perfesional operatoning
>systim like windows NT!!
>
>fuck off!
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 03:27:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 23:19:28 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Bob Eager wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> For reasons of interest only (and because I don't have access to an
>> XEDIT manual, having only used it once or twice) would you mind
>> summarising what the ALL command does? I'm interested....
>
>ALL is sort of like a find all. It displays all lines containing the
>specified pattern. But instead of simply moving to a line that matches the
>pattern, it displays all lines that match. Any lines that do not match are
>disabled from being displayed. You end up with a series of lines that match
>and delimiters that show the number of lines that do not match. It makes it
>easy to see all occurrences of a pattern without the non-matching lines
>getting in the way. You can also selectively show non-matching lines above
>or below a matching line using the SHOW command.
>
Various methods can be used to emulate this within vi/Unix.
The simplest one:
g/pattern/command
(command usually being s/pat2/replacement/, p, or d).
An interesting variant:
v/pattern/command
processes lines NOT matching the pattern.
Another one would be to use the !! filter, which admittedly
isn't quite right as it will replace the filtered text with
whatever the executed program outputs, instead of just
showing it.
Still another would be to save the file and then do a
shell escape on the ex command line (:!grep 'pattern' filename).
Emacs has its own rules, of course, but Lisp (embedded within
Emacs) does have an apply function which allows a list to
be processed by a lambda-expression, if memory serves,
each car [*] of the list being fed to the lambda-expression.
>Gary
>
[*] Content Address Register (car), Content Decrement Register (cdr).
The original design of Lisp apparently was on a 30+-bit
machine with 15-bit address space; every word therefore
could hold two addresses. Instructions on this machine
apparently could have two operands, as well; one of them
probably had to do with incrementing (adding), one
decrementing (subtracting).
I don't remember if it was the IBM 7090 (I have an old
programming book that details some of its characteristics,
including the double address per word issue), but it
was pretty close.
LISP lists were chained together by the cdr in a singly-linked
list; the car was the data. The last list node had a
CDR of NIL. Some other helpful functions were named
cadr, caddr, cadddr, which fetched the second, third,
and fourth elements of a list, respectively; obviously,
one would have to know how a list was structured to use
them effectively.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 96 days, 1:21, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ZHN)
Date: 07 Jan 2001 03:31:17 GMT
Subject: Where can I get good info on setting up Linux
Where can I get good info on setting up Linux?
Yep! Where? I have a 750 mhz athlon, nvidia 64 mother
have a cd_rw and a DVD can I set up linux under these circumstances on this
machine?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 03:37:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kobus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 05 Jan 2001 15:34:11 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>??????
>Sorry, I lost you on this one.....
>What you're trying to tell us is.....
We discuss Aaron's humguous but useful signature now and again.
Its stated purpose is to prevent trolls from generating useless
glop, wasting bandwidth on a newsgroup.
Not clear that it works, but then, not clear that it doesn't either;
one is reminded of snapping one's fingers to keep the tigers away,
but one is also reminded of always carrying an umbrella to keep the
rain from mussing one's hair, and then wondering why people look
at one funny during sunny days.
Perhaps Aaron gets some nastygrams regarding it from the people
mentioned therewithin (I wouldn't know); if so, that means it
*is* working, for him. But none of us see them, so wotthehell.
I might suggest that Aaron use a famous Einstein quote in there,
although I'm not sure if it fits (it is his sig, after all):
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from
mediocrities."
(Einstein was apparently rather quotable, although I'm not sure
if there's a collection anywhere. But it wasn't too hard to
find variants of this quote on the Web -- and others like it.
I happen to like this one as well:
Great minds discuss ideas
Average minds discuss events
Small minds discuss people
Ingenuity lies in making complex things simple.
One can also use this quote (from Ralph Waldo Emerson):
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency
a great soul has simply nothing to do.
)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- is there an alt.quotes.emerson or alt.quotes.einstein?
up 96 days, 1:30, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 04:42:48 +0200
"Alan Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > I know that this is strong medicine for someone like yourself,
> > > > > and you may choose to disbelive it. If I find the spare time I
> > > > > will see if I can locate an online reference.
> > > >
> > > > You made the claim. Back it up.
> > >
> > > my aren't we paranoid.
> >
> > You make a claim that nobody else seems to be able to corroborate, and
then
> > refuse to back it up. That's not paranoia, that's plain common sense.
>
> OK, I'll back him up. I saw that article too.
>
> In fact...look here:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/issue/0,4537,2387282,00.html
>
> Conventional wisdom says Linux is incredibly stable.
> Always skeptical, we decided to put that claim to the
> test over a 10-month period. In our test, we ran Caldera
> Systems OpenLinux, Red Hat Linux, and Windows NT
> Server 4.0 with Service Pack 3 on duplicate 100MHz
> Pentium systems with 64MB of memory. Ever since we
> first booted up our test systems in January, network
> requests have been sent to each server in parallel for
> standard Internet, file and print services. The results
> were quite revealing. Our NT server crashed an average
> of once every six weeks. Each failure took roughly 30
> minutes to fix. That's not so bad, until you consider that
> neither Linux server ever went down. This test, coupled
> with our technical staff's extensive Linux and NT
> experience, leads us to believe that Linux truly is more
> stable than NT on uniprocessor servers.
I wonder what the results would've been if they were using:
A> NT SP >3 preferably 6a, but 4 would do as well. Sp4 was released on
october 1998, this article dates to november 1999, why didn't they use the
SP4?
It was out for nearly 3 months before they start their test.
B> How would the test fare on better systems.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
