Linux-Advocacy Digest #376, Volume #31 Wed, 10 Jan 01 22:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Would Linux be invented if? (Peter Hayes)
Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Linux 2.4.0 rocks for me, and you? (mlw)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Adam Warner")
Re: KDE Hell (Donn Miller)
Re: kernel problems (Charlie Ebert)
Re: kernel problems (Charlie Ebert)
Re: kernel problems (Charlie Ebert)
Re: kernel problems (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Les Mikesell")
New Dodge uses Linux and Java (Russ Lyttle)
Re: kernel problems ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Ayende Rahien")
Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit. (Clamchu)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KDE Hell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:15:20 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:48:01 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
wrote:
> It was the Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:06:33 +0000...
> ...and Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What did finland do to be cursed with bill gates - If god were really
> > > interested he
> > > would have died at birth.
> >
> > Or what if in 1968 the officials at the Lakeside School in Seattle had
> > decided against installing a computer terminal? Gates would probably have
> > followed his father into the legal profession, and Apple would rule the
> > roost.
>
> I don't think so. IBM would have made a contract with some other
> company, likely they'd come back to the intended CP/M deal, and with
> their quasi-monopoly in business IT they'd have leveraged that crappy
> ugly home computer called the PC/XT with a crappy ugly single-tasking
> operating system into the same position that the DOS-based PC has held
> in our world.
Oh sure, IBM would have produced their PC/XT with some kind of OS, maybe
from Gary Kildall, maybe something else like some version of Unix.
But it was Gates' marketing genius and dubious business practices that
maintained the IBM-PC as the dominant platform from the mid 80's. IBM never
intended the PC to be anything more than a stopgap product, two years at
most, until they developed something better. They were as surprised as any
at its success, partly due to the cloners, but also due to Gates'
influence. Without Gates the PC would have died the death it should have
died.
> And nobody knows what would have happened to Apple if people would
> have been forced to use the lowly Integer BASIC instead of Microsoft's
> cool Applesoft BASIC on the ][e.
Even so, Apple would have flourished in a Gates-free world, and everybody
else would be the loser.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:25:37 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Having them all bundeled togather prevents the massive array of useless,
> piddeling software available for a platform, like Linux.
>
> How the hell many news readers do I need when PAN barely suffices?
I agree. really. Having choices is a bad thing. How the hell many
scripting languages do I need when Perl suffices? Actually, why do I
even
need a scripting language when c is a perfectly good language to develop
applications in? Hell, why do I even need c when I can use an X86
assembler like MASM, NASM, or TASM? Scratch that, I only need 1
assembler, so I guess MASM will suffice, after all, 1 operating system
on
one chipset is all we really need.
...and by that logic, competition and consumer choice does not lead to
better products, a hammer is the only tool you'll ever need, and the
only OS and tools you need are the ones that are dictated to you by a
software manufacturer.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.0 rocks for me, and you?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:27:19 -0500
I used 2.4.0-test8 and it was mostly stable. I found a few bugs I could
not work around. I bagged it for 2.2.x. I am running 2.4.0 now, and so
far so good.
It is faster, but behaves differently than 2.2.x. I have to get used to
it.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:29:11 GMT
TTK, Ciar wrote:
>
> Hrm .. on a slight tangent, *how* much $$$ does it cost these days
> to buy an ORB, a C compiler, a C++ compiler, a Pascal compiler, a JVM,
> Prolog, a debugger, and an SQL database for Windows? I'm looking at
> the FAQ-o-matic at http://linux.davecentral.com/ at all of the devel
> language tools (compilers, interpreters, visual development environs,
> et al) that come packaged with most Linux distributions, and it just
> occurred to me that all those Windows users out there don't *get*
> these things with their operating system. They have to *pay* if they
> want to be able to write simple scripts for their computers. It blows
> my mind.
You can get open source versions of C/C++ with Win32 support, Perl,
etc. Just one way that Windows users benefit from Linux and the
open-source movement.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:32:29 +1200
Hi Ayende,
> Have you even seen the 4Q results of SPECWeb99 ?
> Tux just barely got the higher score, and it's a web server *no one* use.
> IIS got just behind Tux, and it's a commonly used webserver.
Thank you for alerting me to those results.
I see the results you are referring to are here:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/
Specifically the Dell PowerEdge 8450/700. Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
only loses to Red Hat : TUX 2.0 by a small margin.
Do you know how Microsoft improved the results so much? (Also possibly
helped by the fact that Linux still might not scale as well as the number of
processors is increased?)
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:35:29 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Craig Kelley wrote:
> How is Windows NT/2000 better than Linux 2.4.0?
Easy. It has a microkernel, which allows for much better CPU scaling
WRT SMP.
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:36:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:30:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
>Ebert) wrote:
>
>
>>This could be why my friends Windows box with a SB live card sounds
>>similar to a 1968 transistor radio.
>
>Probably because he selected "Radio Quality" from multimedia
>properties.
> He got exactly what he selected.
>
We gave it to another lady Edie to play with and see if she
could make it sound better.
>>It's the old ONE SIZE fit's all concept again.
>
>No, it's a user who doesn't know how to set up the advanced functions
>of the card. Functions that are NOT available under Linsux I might
>add.
>
>>We have ONE port on the kernel so let's run everybody's sound card
>>thru this thing with a series of drivers for each!
>
>I prefer to listen to sound instead of playing with ports on a kernel
>myself.
>
>>Brilliant.
>
>Ok.
>>That's what made windows and that's what sucks.
>
>Windows supports that card far better than Linux does, and most like
>always will. IE: STILL no digital outs with Linux.
>
>>And if you can't tell see this difference by now you probably
>>couldn't differentiate between a plate of cornbeef and a plate of shit.
>
>I can HEAR the difference using digital outs under Windows instead of
>being forced to use analog outs under Linux.
>
>Can't you?
>
Edie played with this 98 machine and the SB live for 15 minutes and
we couldn't get it to sound as good as my Debian box under XMMS and
my SB Live.
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
By their admission the Debian system sounded better.
It sounded to me like there was white noise on everything you
played.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:38:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:10:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
>Ebert) wrote:
>
>>In article <xzR66.27225$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>>Microsoft's support site is a thousands times better than anything the LDP
>>>could squeeze out of it's ass in a century.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Ah, I can tell you've never written or worked with Windows before.
>
>He's talking about the quality of a web site, not writing code.
>
>>At Microsoft's web site they do have an impressive support site
>>which details out the 37,000 some odd bugs which have been found
>>in Windows 2000. Now, after spending about 6 hours going through
>>this dip-shit site, if you find your bug the changes for them
>>having a remedy for it other than "REPORTED" are ALMOST NILL.
>
>Baloney.
I haven't heard this one liner in quite a while.
>>On the other hand if you have a problem with Debian you can
>>just write a message to the debian users newgroup and it
>>will be responded to typically within an hour.
>
>Yea and you will get 100 different answers, most of which will either
>be accusations of your stupidity or a collection of wrong and outdated
>information.
>
Baloney.
>>And you don't have to look anything up.
>
>Why bother?
>
If you have a problem with Windows your going to the web.
If you have a problem with Linux your going to the newsgroup.
Otherwise I guess you'll never fix your problem.
>>Hope this helps.
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:39:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>JM wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:02:10 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:38:31 -0500, Gary Hallock
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>Clearly a lie. You obviously prefer to spend most of your time bashing
>> >>Linux. How many hours a day to you spend on that? When do you find time to
>> >>do anything useful?
>>
>> >I have lot's of time, lot's of time. Being self employed
>>
>> Just substitute "un" for "self" and you may be closer to the truth.
>>
>> >has many
>> >advantages over reporting to a cubicle everyday and watching the CEO
>> >(who has a contract BTW do you?)get rich and fat, and the slaves lose
>> >their benefits one at a time.
>> >
>> >Yep, I left that world years ago for obvious reasons, money being one
>> >of them. Free time being another, and yes I have lots of time to spend
>> >exposing Linux for the pile of trash that it is.
>>
>> You might want to try getting a hobby, or getting laid.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>There's a reason flat-head has so much time....
>
>
>
Hobbies do take up much time.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:41:14 GMT
In article <Dr676.35179$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Kyle's problem is that he believes in paying premium prices for the
>> plate o' shit.
>
>If people like me didn't do that, people like you would be out of a job.
Oh heavens no. No.
The only way a computer programmer could possibly be out of work
is if the world blew itself to bits with H-bombs.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:43:21 GMT
In article <93hs0u$79o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >
>>> > > Actually the so-called "32-CPU" windows system is just four 8 way
>>> > > systems.
>>> >
>>> > Really? Is this including the NEC, Unisys and several other vendor's 32-CPU
>>> > and 64-CPU boxes? One single box with 32-CPUs is actually just four 8-way
>>> > CPUs? That's not what their sites say, so they must be falsely advertising,
>>> > right?
>>>
>>> All the so called "32-way" windows systems I have seen,
>>> turn out to be, on closer inspection, clusters of 4 8 way PCs.
>>>
>>> If you know of a true 32-way windows pc, do be a good
>>> sport and provide a URL, OK?
>
>> <sigh>
>
>> You haven't been paying attention at all, have you? At the Win2K launch,
>> they had a 16-way Unisys box pumping away at an Airline flight routing
>> program.
>
>> Here's a press release of the Win2k launch event I was telling you about:
>> http://www.unisys.com/news/releases/2000/feb/02176866.asp
>
>> Here's a press release of the release of Unisys' 32-way Intel server:
>> http://www.unisys.com/marketplace/giga/702248-df99.html
>
>> Here's the product information on the 32-way ES7000:
>> http://www.unisys.com/hw/servers/enterprise/7000/default.asp
>
>> Here's a Compaq Proliant ML770 32-way server:
>> http://www5.compaq.com/products/servers/proliantml770/index.html
>
>> Here's Microsoft's shortlist of vendors who provide
>> Windows 2000 Datacenter Server hardware:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/hardware/default.asp
>> (note: not all are 32-way, some are 8, some are 16, and some are 32)
>
>> Needless to say, you are wrong, and perhaps you should keep your eyes
>> open in the future to the news rather than just getting all your
>> info from slashdot.org.
>
>Chad doesnt know too much about how x86 processors work.
>
>32 processors in one box is not the same thing as an entirely parallel
>32 processor system.
>
>This isnt surprising. Chad doesnt know much about a whole host of
>subjects, computers being only one.
>
He got you there Chad.
Time to retire.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:49:36 GMT
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93h3r4$6b6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Doesn't making an answer or ini file imply that you must already
> > know the answers to all the possible questions? What if
> > you don't?
> >
> Typically when installing one of the MS apps you do know all the
> answers. If it turns out for some reason it doesn't work (eg running
> out of hard disk space) it errors out without a gui window (since
> you're running it in silent mode). Typically it'll log the
> installation process somewhere, either a text file or the event log (or
> both).
Why would you know the answers before you have done an
install? Is windows technology so badly implemented that
you are afraid to install something remotely without testing
it on a machine in front of you first?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: New Dodge uses Linux and Java
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:52:52 GMT
Got this from /. : New Dodge Super 6 Hemi uses Linux and Java
<http://www.4adodge.com/autoshow/news/hemi.html>
I like the specs, less HP than my Coronet and Charger, but less weight too :
Dodge Super8 HemiŪ Preliminary Specifications
Powertrain
Engine: Prototype 353 cu. in. (5.7-liter)
HemiŪ V-8
Estimated Power: 353 bhp (263 kW)
Estimated Torque: 395 lb.-ft. (536 Nm)
Transmission: 4-speed AutoStickŪ manumatic
transmission
Drive: Rear-wheel drive
Body & Suspension
Structure: Unitized body with B-pillarless
body side aperture
Suspension
-- Front: Independent with modified
MacPherson struts
-- Rear: Custom independent five-link with
coil-over-shock setup
Wheels & Tires Wheels: 22" x 10"
Tires
-- Front: P255-740R560
-- Rear: P255-770R560
Dimensions & Weight Length: 186 in. (4724 mm)
Width: 73.9 in. (1877 mm)
Height: 56.2 in. (1427 mm)
Wheelbase: 117.4 in. (2982 mm)
Track
-- Front: 62.5 in. (1588 mm)
-- Rear: 62.8 in. (1595 mm)
Weight: 3600 lbs. (1633 kg)
Estimated Performance
0-60 mph (0-97 kph): 5.7 sec
Top Speed: 154 mph (248 kph)
Quarter Mile, Standing Start 14.1 sec @ 101.5
mph (162 kph)
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:45:26 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If you have a problem with Windows your going to the web.
Or to newsgroups, email lists, bbs, lots of places, what is your point?
> If you have a problem with Linux your going to the newsgroup.
See above.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:51:37 +0200
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93j5vc$e2v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Ayende,
>
> > Have you even seen the 4Q results of SPECWeb99 ?
> > Tux just barely got the higher score, and it's a web server *no one*
use.
> > IIS got just behind Tux, and it's a commonly used webserver.
>
> Thank you for alerting me to those results.
>
> I see the results you are referring to are here:
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/
>
> Specifically the Dell PowerEdge 8450/700. Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
> only loses to Red Hat : TUX 2.0 by a small margin.
>
> Do you know how Microsoft improved the results so much? (Also possibly
> helped by the fact that Linux still might not scale as well as the number
of
> processors is increased?)
According to your previous post, TUX would work only with 2.4, which has the
best SMP support for Linux.
I'm not aware of how they improved the results, aside from the the tuning
issues that they gave in the link above.
It seems pretty standard setup to me.
The point stand, Tux isn't used in production, it's a benchmark tool only,
IIS is a production server.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:56:19 -0500
From: Clamchu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit.
Hey bastards, cut out the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit. I've been lurking
in here, and I see some of you Linux turds slamming FreeBSD for it's
allegedly poor SMP support. First of all, you weenballs, NT 4.0 blew
away Linux with regards to SMP support, and now Windows 2000 is even
better.
The fact is that SMP performance in both FreeBSD AND Linux level off
after 4 CPUS. Secondly, Windows 2000 scales up much better than Linux in
the SMP area. So does Solaris. The reason? Ever hear of a micro kernel
messaging architecture? Windows 2000 blows Linux away with greater than
4 CPUs. Newsflash: W2K has a microkernel. Translation: better SMP
support with more than 4 processors.
Now shut the fuck up about FreeBSD vs. Linux. Why are two open source
groups slamming each other? Show me documented test results that Linux
outperforms FreeBSD in the SMP area, and I'll show you tests in which
Linux is getting slaughtered by Windows 2000 with more than 4
processors.
Besides, shouldn't you Linux advocates be talking about your usual ease
of use, "which is better for the desktop, Windows ME or Linux"
bullshit? Go back to discussing which is easier to install, FreeBSD or
Linux, because both are about even with regards to SMP support.
====== 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: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:57:46 GMT
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8bR66.26812$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Your programmer friends are idiots. The registry makes generalized
> administration easier. It's not the job of the administrator to be bogged
> down with programming laziness.
>
> Admin software is POSSIBLE under Windows because of the registry. Under
> Linux, the /etc directory makes centralized administration IMPOSSIBLE.
> Editing that "line of text" is, like every administrative action, not as
> simple as it sounds.
If you really have trouble editing a line of text, why does your
nonsense keep showing up here? The advantage of text is not only
it's simplicity but the fact that there are a vast number of tools to
manipulate it, compare it, version control it and anything else you
might need.
> The registry solves this by unifying the format, and location for
> configuration, allowing true interoperability. A feature which Lin-nuts
> like yourself will probably never realize.
I have a serious problem with the concept of 'true interoperability' being
used to describe things that only run under one vendor's OS. Especially
when the only thing that is really compatible with it is the true windows
user interface, regedit.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:00:14 GMT
In article <5YZ66.12664$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > > Linux has support for at least 2 choices of journaling filesystem (reiser
>or
>> > > ext3 )
>> >
>> > Neither of which are stable and each have their own caveats. NTFS 5 has none
>> > of these problems.
>>
>> So say the windows zealots - but of course it's not true.
>> Suse has been shipping lvm and reiser for some time now,
>> and is used in production environments.
>
>We just had a huge debate on this about 2 months ago. The linvocates were all
>saying the same thing. When we pressed and asked if any major corporation would
>be willing to install a beta filesystem on their corporate servers and trust it
>for 24/7 operations, no one said, "Yes".
>
>The truth is, it ships with Suse (and maybe Debian), but not by default, you
>have to manualy enable it at your own risk.
>
>Anyone using them in production environments doesn't respect their data very
>much.
>
>I also seem to remember that there are some huge caveats to using ReiserFS
>and they came out in that debate, but I can't seem to remember off the top
>of my head what they are. Perhaps someone could refresh my memory.
>
>Ext3, OTOH, still has a long ways to go.
>
Reiser is currently in use in production environments already.
There have been no reports of problems that I've seen.
>
>> > The filesystem doesn't "get in the way" and it's never been an issue. Even
>> > NT 4 still kicks Linux's ass in all things performance.
>>
>> Is that why Linux is the reigning specweb champ?
>
>With a kernel-mode HTTP server that no one would ever use in the real world?
>So what?
>
>IIS kicks everyone else, including Apache. Who cares about a cheesy kernel-mode
>server.
>
IIS kicks apaches ass?
Well then I guess IIS would take over 80% of the market apache now
dominates.
>> It seems the windoze zealots all want to live in the
>> past, and keep reassuring themselves with tales
>> of the old discredited mindcraft benchmarks.
>
>You're the one that doesn't read the news and attempts to debate me with
>months-old news, and claims that Linux supports things that it only does so
>in a beta/unsupported/non-stable way. You also claim that Linux is fast
>because someone decided to put a server in the kernel which isn't practical.
>
>-Chad
>
Oh I wouldn't say that Chad. The Microsoft Kernel in Windows is
dedicated toward the GUI and with a kernel which is dedicated toward
a GUI you will never achieve this IIS world domination you keep
talking about.
At least with Linux you can run Kernel and WWW server without
all the rest of the trash dragging you down.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:01:53 +1200
Hi Aaron,
> > http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010110S0006
>
> Although I agree with this (and I think Ballmer does too), Microsoft
> would never admit this without an ulterior motive. In this case, it's
> to provide more ammunition in the DOJ case that Microsoft is not a
> monopoly.
Maybe, apart from the fact that Ballmer might not want to look foolish by
making something else up.
He stated (as reported by Techweb):
"I think you have to rate competitors that threaten your core higher than
you rate competitors where you're trying to take from them," Ballmer said.
"It puts the Linux phenomenon and the Unix phenomenon at the top of the
list. I'd put the Linux phenomenon really as threat No. 1."
I think he is saying that Linux is eating into Microsoft's server revenue
and moreover that it is eating into Microsoft's market share. This
interpretation is reinforced by his later statement (as reported):
In his talk, Ballmer identified Oracle Corp. (stock: ORCL) and Sun
Microsystems Inc. (stock: SUNW) as second-tier rivals because "I think
[server sales are] our biggest potential short-term return."
So Ballmer is seeing market share being erroded in what appears to be
Microsoft's most lucurative market. You can't smooth out the financials for
ever.
But I agree it plays nicely with the DOJ case. I still found it surprising
that the CEO of Microsoft would make those statements though. It must be a
body blow to all those who see Linux as irrelevant and worthless.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:02:51 GMT
In article <kV276.28267$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>> That is until the breakup is ordered.
>
>Is that gonna be any time in this millenium?
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
Yes.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:05:20 GMT
On 10 Jan 2001 16:48:29 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>But you don't like Enlightenment.
I like Enlightenment, and I have said that before. Mainly because at
least it IS different than Windows and has a fresh look and feel to
it.
It is however very hostile in the configuration and user friendly
department.
I'm hoping this will improve in time.
>Strange.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
