Linux-Advocacy Digest #398, Volume #31 Thu, 11 Jan 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: kernel problems(new) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) (Jens)
Re: The real truth about NT ("fmc")
Re: Microsoft releases Games console (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Would Linux be invented if? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Craig Kelley)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(Craig Kelley)
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit.
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. (.)
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Re: The real truth about NT
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Adam Warner")
Re: The real truth about NT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:39:26 GMT
Adam, the answer is simple - Microsoft did not use IIS 5.0 at all, Microsoft
used 'SWC 3.0'. This is clearly visible in the submission form. SWC I believe
means "Scalable Web Cache", which, according to www.microsoft.com is a
kernel-space HTTP accelerator (sounds familiar? Microsoft copying Linux?).
You will not find any links to SWC 3.0 on Microsoft's homepage, you have to
know the name and have to search for it to find the link. I'm not aware of
any sites running SWC (although there are a few SPECweb96 results done with
SWC). I can only see a March 2001 availability date, IIS 5.0 is apparently
just a bumper sticker. This result is Microsoft's own admission that IIS 5.0
and Windows 2000 cannot be fixed to scale. I find it pretty amazing that
Microsoft's kernel-space SWC server was unable to beat Tux, considering the
vast benchmarking resources Microsoft controls!
Thomas
> > 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
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:43:44 GMT
Ayende, you missed that Microsoft used "SWC 3.0", a kernel-space webserver,
so the setup was not a standard IIS setup at all. In fact I doubt that any
IIS 5.0 code was running during the benchmark at all; it would be a huge
slowdown: considering the other, IIS-only SPECweb99 results submitted by
numerous vendors.
Thomas
> 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.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: 11 Jan 2001 21:51:15 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "rus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> I find the video setup disheartening. I also find that text editing
:> instead of GUI controls for program setup frustrating. I am using
:> Caldera distro. Is there a distro for people only having time to do
:> work and not time for figuring out their OS?
: I'm sorry, but most Linux people seem to think you don't exist.
Bullshit.
: Why would
: someone want to get work done instead of tweaking their OS? (yes, that's
: sarcasm).
*Most* people want to get work done.
And, no, they probably don't want to have to learn any more about a PC
than they have to.
But they ALSO don't want to have to bluescreen and reboot at
unpredictable and frequent intervals; they don't want to have to
reinstall their software and/or OS for no defensible reason; they
don't want to be forced to upgrade unrelated software just because
they upgraded one piece of it; they don't want to deal with bitrot or
DLL Hell; they don't want to have to pay 3 or 4 times more for
software than for hardware over the lifetime of the machine, etc.,
etc,. etc.
Linux and Windows both have problems, but the problems of Linux are
solvable and in fact are being solved rapidly, whereas neither appears
to be true of Windows.
Many desktop-oriented Linux apps may seem immature compared to their
Windows counterparts, but, compared to those same apps at a similar
point in time after their release, they look an awful lot better to
me, and they're improving far more rapidly as well.
It's not hard for me to see why Mafia$oft is scared. I don't think it
should be underestimated. It's recovered from similar blunders before
(though never through lawful tactics). But I do think that it is
going to have to either adapt or cease to exist as we know it. And I
think it knows that as well.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel problems(new)
Date: 11 Jan 2001 21:54:23 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I have attached both my Makefile and a config file. It builds damn near
: everything and it boots. Copy the Makefile to your kernel directory, and
: the load the config with xconfig. I am using RedHat Linux 7.0 and using
: gcc 2.96.
: No guarantees as to if it will work for you, or even produce a stable
: kernel.
In RH7, aren't you supposed to use kgcc for compiling the kernel?
Joe
------------------------------
From: Jens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:07:07 +0000
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > Yes, but are any of these available with a built-in time machine?
> >
> > Hmm, what do you mean? The computer keeps track of the time.
>
> You said you wanted to allow clicking in FOUR dimensions (x,y,z + time).
>
> Now...what exactly is different about YOUR concept of clicking on the
> time axis which is different from today....that is...clicking one thing
> now, and clicking another thing a couple seconds from now.
>
> If that's the case, then your initial statement about "being able to
> select in 4 dimensions.. x,y,z + time..." is nothing more than typical
> pseudo-intellectual boilerplate.
>
Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. You don't 'click in the 4th dimension (time)'
any different than you click today. Time is af course inherent in everything we do
but that's not what I meant. By talking about incorporating 4 dimensions into the
UI I'm talking about using 3D and time together. Objects move around and change
over time and you will see that as something smooth. Maybe I should have talked
about continuous visible time to make it a bit more distinct from the current use
of discrete time. Current 2D interfaces use time but mostly it is in discrete
steps. Hope this clarifies things a bit :)
Jens
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:12:36 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93jjc5$c7k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi all
>
> It must be about 4 or more months since my last post - but I was very
> busy!
>
> Any way, I found another number of interesting (but not surprising)
> facts on why business in general should avoid NT/2000 for any kind of
> solution.
>
> 1. Over the last three years I had to re-install most NT boxes once per
> year (general average of 20 odd boxes). Problem is that they fall over
> regularly and one day they just never come back up. Most of the time
> it's corrupt page files (I'm still searching for a solution - anyone?)
That one's easy. Just put the pagefile on its own partition. It solved the
problem on my NT 4.0 system, so it should work on Win2000.
fm
<snipped the rest - I don't have all the answers>
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft releases Games console
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:17:48 +0100
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Geoff Lane wrote:
> >
> > >> The Register: And so Xbox is 'launched'
> > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15885.html
> >
> > As MS have a policy of "Windows Everywhere" will the version that runs
> > on the Xbox be called XWindows or WindowsX?
> >
> > After all MS invented DNS (no the other DNS...)
>
> Ah yes, another example of Microsoft attempting to gain market share
> by deliberately introducing a name that's designed to be confused with
> established, non-Microsoft technology.
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> > /\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\
> > England /\
> >
> > "I'm going to eat you little fishie; I'm going to eat you little fishie;
> > I'm going to eat you little fishie; 'cos I like eating fish!"
> > -- Cat
>
>
Well, I've got the feeling that MS Game-console is already out (since 1995
i think). Windows IS the ULTIMATE adventure game, the goal is to stay up
longer than 5 hours (on 9x) or 5 days (on NT). No cheating allowed, using
MS office gives bonus points.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:23:33 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:15:20 +0000...
...and Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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
Bill Gates a genius?
> and dubious business practices that
> maintained the IBM-PC as the dominant platform from the mid 80's.
In your dreams maybe, but I think everyone in Gates' position would
have made approximately the same decisions and turned their company
into something Microsoft-like.
Maybe we'd have something like a Windows based on a heavily modified
closed-source Unix kernel dating back to 1982.
> > 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.
I'm not so sure.
mawa
--
Miller's Paradox: As a network evolves, the number of Nazi
comparisons not forestalled by citation to Godwin's Law converges to
zero.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:30:32 +0000
Why save web pages? Use a local caching web proxy such as wwwoffle
http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk and that will obviate the need to save
pages (given enough disk space)
It also means if one browser using it fails to display, start another
and the page is already local.
HTH
George Russell
Registered Linux User 61117
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 11 Jan 2001 15:30:58 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Adam, the answer is simple - Microsoft did not use IIS 5.0 at all,
> Microsoft used 'SWC 3.0'. This is clearly visible in the submission
> form. SWC I believe means "Scalable Web Cache", which, according to
> www.microsoft.com is a kernel-space HTTP accelerator (sounds
> familiar? Microsoft copying Linux?). You will not find any links to
> SWC 3.0 on Microsoft's homepage, you have to know the name and have
> to search for it to find the link. I'm not aware of any sites
> running SWC (although there are a few SPECweb96 results done with
> SWC). I can only see a March 2001 availability date, IIS 5.0 is
> apparently just a bumper sticker. This result is Microsoft's own
> admission that IIS 5.0 and Windows 2000 cannot be fixed to scale. I
> find it pretty amazing that Microsoft's kernel-space SWC server was
> unable to beat Tux, considering the vast benchmarking resources
> Microsoft controls!
Oh, they'll contact Mindcraft pretty soon here...
--
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: Craig Kelley <[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
does) )
Date: 11 Jan 2001 15:33:53 -0700
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Mading wrote:
> :> ANY basic is "better than Visual Basic".
>
> : No. There have been some truly shockingly bad BASIC variants... :^(
>
> Okay, that's true. But back to the original, there do exist basics
> on Linux that are better than Visual Basic.
The best part of VB is that it's married to a GUI toolkit; I don't see
anything like it (ie, RAD) for Linux using BASIC (yet).
--
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] ()
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:47:58 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:51:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:01:01 -0700, rus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I find the video setup disheartening. I also find that text editing
>>instead of GUI controls for program setup frustrating. I am using
>>Caldera distro. Is there a distro for people only having time to do
>>work and not time for figuring out their OS?
>
>
>If you find the video "setup" disheartening, wait until you see the
>video itself. That's assuming of course you manage to make it work.
What part of 'turn on computer' do you find so difficult?
[deletia]
As far as text files go: it is nice to have information
exposed to you rather than hidden from you. In this
respect, Linux hardware configuration is superior.
At least with Linux, you know whether or not Linux has
recognized a device completely and what it is.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:49:48 -0000
On 11 Jan 2001 21:51:15 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: "rus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>:> I find the video setup disheartening. I also find that text editing
>:> instead of GUI controls for program setup frustrating. I am using
>:> Caldera distro. Is there a distro for people only having time to do
>:> work and not time for figuring out their OS?
>
>: I'm sorry, but most Linux people seem to think you don't exist.
>
>
>Bullshit.
>
>
>: Why would
>: someone want to get work done instead of tweaking their OS? (yes, that's
>: sarcasm).
>
>
>*Most* people want to get work done.
>
>And, no, they probably don't want to have to learn any more about a PC
>than they have to.
>
>But they ALSO don't want to have to bluescreen and reboot at
>unpredictable and frequent intervals; they don't want to have to
>reinstall their software and/or OS for no defensible reason; they
Alternately, they might want their OS to tell them what
it has detected in the system rather than just giving
vague 'its not quite working' sort of errors.
[deletia]
Information hiding isn't always good. Lack of information may
seem less scary. However, it is also ultimately less useful.
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:51:50 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:50:58 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Clamchu wrote:
>
>> 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.
No it didn't.
At least parrot the propaganda correctly.
What NT4 had over linux 2.2 was better quad-cpu -> quad-NIC support.
>
>
>Well it sure looks that the BSD's have some catch up to do
>http://www.ddj.com/articles/2001/0165/0165a/0165a.htm
[deletia]
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: 11 Jan 2001 22:54:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:01:01 -0700, rus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I find the video setup disheartening. I also find that text editing
>>instead of GUI controls for program setup frustrating. I am using
>>Caldera distro. Is there a distro for people only having time to do
>>work and not time for figuring out their OS?
> If you find the video "setup" disheartening, wait until you see the
> video itself. That's assuming of course you manage to make it work.
> Why do you think the Penguinista's like to edit text files?
> It's because the video and gui's look so primitive.
> Caldera is a good choice. Mandrake 7.2 is another good choice, but
> don't get your hopes up. Linux running a gui is still quite crude
> compared to Windows.
Why exactly is it that under explorer in w2k, I can look at a remote
ftp directory, but I cant actually drag and drop anything IN it to
my local machine? Why must I write click on it and select
"copy file"?
Uh huh. Crude indeed.
Even NeXTStep did this right. And that was ten years ago.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:38:22 +0000
rus wrote:
>
> I find the video setup disheartening. I also find that text editing
> instead of GUI controls for program setup frustrating. I am using
> Caldera distro. Is there a distro for people only having time to do
> work and not time for figuring out their OS?
SuSE is pretty easy to set up. Yast (the setup tool) is a cursor
keys/menus type interface. However, beware - it does tend to control
most aspects of the system, and does do odd counter-intuitive stuff at
times
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:55:32 -0000
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:15:55 -0000, Richard Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Richard Wright wrote:
>> >
>> > When I install Linux its as easy to do as Windows. The only hard parts
>being
>> > the X configuration (there ought to be a new tool for this by now) and
>the
>> > partitioning - which has to be done for Windows as well. Everything else
>> > then falls into place for a great desktop operating system.
>>
>> I never found X that hard per se, the problem was I didn't have all my
>> monitor details to hand, so trial and error time...
>Mostly thats what I mean, really -that and no hardware detection.
X configurators have been detecting hardware automagically for
years now. It is only PCI after all...
As far as foorez at barrefresh goes: that's really not such a
chore. Just pick the lowest set of suitable numbers. This
'worst case' is little different than the similar situation with
WinDOS configuration.
Although, X has provided more meaningful 'generic options' for
far longer.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:57:31 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:51:37 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> > KDE konqueror can't seem to see SMB drives on either a SAMBA server or a
>> > Windows PC.
>>
>> Actually, it works here, but if it doesn't, Caldera is paying someone to
>> implement it right.
>
>Seems like Mandrake couldn't get it right.
It works fine on my copy of Mandrake 7.2 (beta even).
>> If you really want it now, use Gnomba as a "neighborhood"), and configure
>> it to run "kfmclient openURL" when opening a share.
>
>Well, I decided it was easier to use NFS, Linux seems to work with that. Of
>course, I can't immediately find an NFS client for Windows, so I use SAMBA
The two options are more or less identical from the client
perspective: smbfs versus nfs.
[deletia]
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:00:47 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:13:12 +0000, pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> pip wrote:
>> >
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > > > I get 100% success with Windows 98 SE. What's your point?
>> > >
>> > > How much do you burn? My company burn's about 1000 CD's per month (all
>> > > custom stuff for clients).
>> >
>> > Then get better CDR software :-)
>> > What has this got to do with the OS?
>>
>> The CD writing process is susceptible to bottle-neck-induced errors.
>>
>> NT's "agressive caching" technique (i.e. caching when there's absolutely
>> no fucking reason to cache), causes disk I/O bottlenecks...thereby
>> increasing the likelihood of your CDR-burn to have errors.
>
>Fair point, except that:
>1) Linux also has _very_ aggressive file chaching and on the whole it
>does a great job
>2) Most decent CD burners have an internal cache to prevent this
>(remembering that
>if you are burning cd's you should _not_ be using other programs anyway
This is pure bullshit. You're merely lowering expectations
in order to make up for pisspoor product.
>either under NT or Linux, so caching should not present a real problem).
>Linux and NT are not "designed" for this type of predictable data flow
>really (well, maybe RT Linux can be?).
Burning CD's should not be that timing critical.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:04:07 +1200
Thanks Thomas,
> Adam, the answer is simple - Microsoft did not use IIS 5.0 at all,
> Microsoft used 'SWC 3.0'. This is clearly visible in the submission
> form. SWC I believe means "Scalable Web Cache", which is a
> kernel-space HTTP accelerator (sounds familiar?). I'm not aware
> of any sites running SWC (although there are a few
> SPECweb96 results done with SWC). I can only see a March 2001
> availability date. SWC is probably a non-production, benchmark-only,
> closed-source, specialized kernel-space webserver - IIS 5.0 is just
> the bumper sticker. This submission is Microsoft's admission that IIS
> 5.0 cannot scale. I'm not aware of any production sites using
> SWC 3.0. (or 2.0.) Thomas
The IIS 5.0 monicker AND Windows 2000 statement confused me because the
article I quoted stated that the kernel-space webserver would only be
available in Whistler (maybe Microsoft will backport it to Win2k for free).
It seems to me that the Operating System was certainly not Windows 2000.
After all how can you replace the Windows 2000 kernel with a (Whistler) beta
and still call it Windows 2000? That also explains why the OPERATING SYSTEM
is only available in March 2001 (if Microsoft reaches that deadline).
It was also noted that the Windows 2000 benchmarks were obtained on superior
hardware: 1 9GB 10KRPM drive and 8 16GB 15K RPM drives for Windows intead of
5 9GB 10KRPM drives for Tux.
You may also be interested in this recent statement by Microsoft. They're
just released a range of web server appliances:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/serverappliance/webserver/default.asp
Check out the statement here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/serverappliance/webserver/overview.asp
---Begin Quote---
Industry-Leading Hosting Performance
Based on SPECWeb 99, the leading benchmark for Web server performance, Web
Server Appliances powered by Windows 2000 deliver significantly greater
hosting capacity than alternative Web server solutions. Recent SpecWeb test
results showed single-processor machines built on Windows 2000 handled 75%
more simultaneous connections than servers on non-Windows platforms.
---End Quote---
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:04:30 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:48:45 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:b_m76.169449$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> > Dlue for the clueless: Disk drive images are NOT an acceptable
>> > alternative to backup tapes.
>>
>> Ses you.
>>
>> There are other backup media than tapes. CD-R comes to mind.
>
>They do a pretty good job of archiving base OS installations and other small
>amounts of data, true. They're far more portable than tape since most every
>modern system has a multi-read CD-ROM that can read them.
>
>However, tape backups are superior in terms of speed, capacity, and
>reliability. The last point assumes a good drive with quality media.
That's a VERY big IFF.
Infact, most tape media are crap. This is especially true
for consumer grade stuff. Any optical media is going to be
much more suitable if you actually want to get your data
back off again.
>
>When DVD writers become mainstream, you'll see tape backups being
>supplanted.
No, tapes will just get that much larger.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
