Linux-Advocacy Digest #420, Volume #31 Fri, 12 Jan 01 16:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Do any software engineering jobs pay $800,000/year? (jtnews)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Total Cost of Ownership - a challenge (Shane Phelps)
Total Cost of Ownership - a challenge (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:15:11 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do any software engineering jobs pay $800,000/year?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> jtnews wrote:
> >
> > I developed my own securities analysis
> > software in java.
>
> Then why work at all?
>
> I'd just manage my securities, reap the rewards, and spend my time
> doing whatever I wanted.
That's what I'm doing now.
>
> Why extremely wealthy men insist on working until they drop dead in
> the office is incomprehensible....
Because they like their work, and it's fun.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:16:54 GMT
On 13 Jan 2001 06:54:18 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Yes. I chose to remove it a long long time ago, and I never mentioned
>it once when describing the machine's reboot problem. So why do you
>think a card lying around in a cardboard box is relevant to the solution
>of said problem?
Because depending upon what model you have the card was standard with
the machine.
I've never seen one in the field, that I can remember anyway, that
didn't have the card installed because the machine was designed as a
server and that card outperformed the onboard adapter.
>That's great. Now, unless you know something about my Model85 that I don't,
>I can't really see the relevance of *any* of those cards to either my
>Model85, or to the Adaptec SCSI card lying in front of me. See, if it
>says "Adaptec", it's not an FD card rebadged by IBM....
Many systems built later DID have those cards, yours doesn't.
It was a comment related to STANDARDS and the point is that IBM DIDN"T
follow STANDARDS when building the PS/2 line. Henceforth the IBM
EPROM didn't work with non-IBM SCSI drives. This is a FACT.
I'm tired of playing 20 questions with you as to what is in YOUR
particular system.
>>Second issue. Future Domain was Acquired by Adaptec at some point and
>>these adapters were rebadged yet again by Adaptec.
>
>Yes. That happened in 1995, i.e. no less than 4 years after the card in
>front of me was produced.
Exactly.
>>If it is one of the above cards, you need to run the reference disk to
>>disable termination or change any of the other settings.
>
>Nope, sorry, no floppy required.
Hit F2 on boot...
>>If you have one of those, doubtful with a date of 1991, you need to
>>run the SCSI Select utility to change settings
>
>Nope, sorry, no software needed.
>
>
>Want to try again?
Nope. Because you don't have the card that came with the system and
I'm tired of repeating myself....
Believe what you wish, but you have a highly non-standard proprietory
system that by todays standards is a piece of trash.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:16:36 -0500
Chris Lopeman wrote:
>
> Can anyone recommend a good raid IDE controller for Linux. Preferably
> ATA 100. We have tried using the Promise controller with limited
> success. We probably want to run 2 controllers in the server (for more
> speed) with a total of 6 drives. 4 of the drives running raid 1+0 and
> the other 2 forming a separate mirror. The 2 in the mirror we also want
>
> to boot off of.
>
> If you can't recommend a good one maybe you can let us know your
> experience with the AMI or Escalade cards. We are considering going to
> one of these.
http://www.research.att.com/~gjm/linux/ide-raid.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris Lopeman
> Object Link Inc.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Total Cost of Ownership - a challenge
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:18:58 +1100
I've seen posters on both sides of the divide weigh in with claims
that "my system has a lower TCO than yours" on a regular basis.
There is invariably no supporting evidence and the statement is usually
made as as if TCO was an end unto itself.
As the system architects here know, TCO is just one factor to consider
when setting up a new system or replacing an existing one.
The others include functionality, system reliability, hardware
availablity, planned technology direction, synergy with existing systems,
physical infrastructure, quality of internal & external support, time
to deploy and system lifetime.
Once those (often conflicting) requirements have been satisfied, cost
is considered. A less capable solution may be chosen if it is
considerably cheaper. Once the analysis is finished, management gets
involved and the hidden agendas, biases and infighting come into play
:-(
(see http://www.solutionmatrix.com/faqs.html#2. for a summary of the
elements in a business case. Please note that IRR is a seriously flawed
metric, as is ROI)
So I'm challenging the collected experience. Provide genuine costings or
a link to a credible TCO article, or at least think before you post a
knee-jerk TCO response.
Shane
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Total Cost of Ownership - a challenge
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:21:19 +1100
I've seen posters on both sides of the divide weigh in with claims
that "my system has a lower TCO than yours" on a regular basis.
There is invariably no supporting evidence and the statement is usually
made as as if TCO was an end unto itself.
As the system architects here know, TCO is just one factor to consider
when setting up a new system or replacing an existing one.
The others include functionality, system reliability, hardware
availablity, planned technology direction, synergy with existing systems,
physical infrastructure, quality of internal & external support, time
to deploy and system lifetime.
Once those (often conflicting) requirements have been satisfied, cost
is considered. A less capable solution may be chosen if it is
considerably cheaper. Once the analysis is finished, management gets
involved and the hidden agendas, biases and infighting come into play
:-(
(see http://www.solutionmatrix.com/faqs.html#2. for a summary of the
elements in a business case. Please note that IRR is a seriously flawed
metric, as is ROI)
So I'm challenging the collected experience. Provide genuine costings or
a link to a credible TCO article, or at least think before you post a
knee-jerk TCO response.
Shane
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 12 Jan 2001 14:22:09 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > I've been reading about noticable slowdowns with journalling in linux -
ymmv
>
> I've done more than just read - I've run reiserfs, logical volume
> manager, etc under Linux.
>
> > I'll have to take your word for it, I can't find it. Regardless, you
didn't
> > address the non-production portion or limited funcionality - face it,
it's
> > not in use in the real world.
>
> Why wouldn't you want a fast, free web server in the real world?
I would love one but I'm not willing to trust an untested in the real world
brand spanking new release that lacks functionality needed to do more than
win a benchmark.
>
> Do you think maybe the fact that it's not in widespread use
> may have something to do with the fact that it's brand new?
How many 1.0 releases of software do you see enterprises trusting their
e-business to?
>
> >
> > Tunes? yes. Designed from the ground up to do nothing but beat SpecWeb?
no,
> > just Tux.
>
> Please back up that assertion - this is the first I've heard
> of such an idea - you admit that you can't find any information
> about tux, but then you make this odd assertion about it.
No problem, comment withdrawn.
>
> Tux was written to be fast, period.
You are absolutely correct. It was written to be fast. Period. It was not
written to be stable, it was not written to be secure nor was it written to
be especially sophisticated or posses special abilties or functions. It's a
fast simple web server. That's it.
>
> > > Again, you get the facts all wrong - it is not an "off the shelf" iis,
> > > but a specially designed and tuned version unavailable outside of
> > > microsoft labs. It is a special "service pack" which make the web
> > > server run as part of the "kernel" - that's how desperate they are
> > > to beat Linux, and they came close.
> >
> > Um, wrong. #1) show me where they did that?
>
> This was discussed in this newgroup -
I don't care where it was discussed, IIS5 does not and cannot run in the
kernel. Period. IIS6 may, but only because of changes to the kernel in
Whistler.
>
> > #2) we discussed tuned, of
> > course it was tuned, just as linux was tuned for this test to. However,
the
> > only thing "special" about the service pack is that it's service pack 2
> > beta - it's not even fully tuned itself yet, and it'll be available to
the
> > public in Feb, free. But they most definately did NOT run in the
kernel -
> > that's reserved for a mode of IIS6. And that's what they didn't use
here.
> >
> > ALSO, do you realize how you sound? Tux beat IIS - yep, by a whole
> > smoldering 2.7% woo hoo!!! Wow!! 2.7% -
>
> Tux beat iis by 250% -
Hello? Math department? 7500 is only 2.7% faster than 7300. Do the math...
>
> This new, all out microsoft web effort is what almost matched tux,
> not the iis we all know and love. Or did you think that iis suddenly
> started running 300% faster thanbefore?
Um, was that 250 or 300 %?
Mind you, that's Tux 2.0 we're talking about, Tux 1.0 lost to IIS and
continues to lose to IIS (see the 2001Q1 results for a 8 CPU machine running
Tux that produces down in the 6000s).
<snip crap>
> the barely released tux
> > screamed past the vetern IIS by a WHOLE 2.7% - yahoo!
>
> Nope, it screamed past the "veteran iis" by 250% - what
> part of that are you having trouble understanding?
The part where your math is so horrible that you are TWO orders of magnitude
wrong ...
>
> IOW, after months of frantic effort, the microsoft "benchmark
> buster" finally managed to come close to the Linux result -
In other words, after months of frantic effort, Tux 2 was released to
improve results a smoking 2.7% over where the same version of IIS5 has been
since last year (and IIS5 offers MUCH more functionality).
>
> The kernel is still being readied - the Linux results will get
> better, since thereal optimization hasn't started yet -
Unless you are a psychic you don't know this. Will they improve? Perhaps.
When the improvements are significantly more than 2.7% I'll look again. Of
course, this just proves that linux kernel 2.2 sucked beans and 2.4 fixed
shit broken in 2.2... which is what (v2.2, that is) linux advocates have
been stumping for years...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:22:17 GMT
On 13 Jan 2001 06:47:16 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>What you *really* meant to say was along the lines of
>
> ``Your machine actually reads the ID pins on the SIMMs, and interprets
> the results according to the standard. It then goes on to *believe*
> what the SIMMs send back.
> This turns out to be a very unfortunate thing to do in a world awash
> with badly or not-at-all ID'ed SIMMs. What makes it even more
> unfortunate is that most motherboard and/or BIOS manufacturers
> simply ignore the ID pins, and thus ignorant users will often
> "test" that their SIMMs work OK by putting them on another motherboard,
> and then blame the PS/2 for not working with the "obviously OK" SIMMs.'',
Wrong, I said your machine uses non-standard SIMMS...
>
>They might not accept all of the same crap hardware that other machines
>of the same era did (although claiming that the way PS/2 machines handle
>72 pin SIMMs, more commonly known as "PS/2 SIMMs", is somehow wrong sounds
>really silly to me), but that doesn't make them non-standard.
It's a non standard proprietory system all the way from the
motherboard connectors, to the idiotic mini IBM FW SCSI connector, to
the power supply, to the SIMMS, to the internal cables, to the power
supply, to the floppy drive, to the older ESDI drives that were used
in them which had IBM specific pin connectors, right down to the case.
>>The problem was despite being better they were shunned by the public.
>
>Actually, the current problem is that the silly machine will not reboot
>properly.
Probably because you don't know what you are doing.......
>It has all supported hardware in there. The disks are IBM, the SIMMs
>are properly ID'ed full parity Fast Page Mode, the SVGA card is original
>IBM, and Windows98 *does* run on the machine. It just doesn't reboot without
>first going through a "Safe Boot".
Is it on the HCL list?
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:23:25 GMT
On 13 Jan 2001 06:59:02 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>And what, pray tell, is "the standard PC architecture"? And if anyone
>gets to decide what it is, shouldn't it be IBM?
It is....
AT ISA bus....
>Bernie
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: 12 Jan 2001 14:26:09 -0600
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > > Would I build my web server with a free Unix that's the world
> > > speed champ, or would I shell out an exorbitant fee for a windows
> > > pc webserver that can't quite match it in performance?
> >
> > Ummm... again, you don't stop to think before writing do you? Sure,
linux
> > itself was free to download --- but are you forgetting the hardware?
Ooooh,
> > you didn't quite notice that the price of the OS was almost
insignificant
> > compared to the price of the hardware? Anyone who can afford that
hardware
> > isn't going to blink for the price of the OS, especially with the
savings
> > down the road in TCO.
> >
>
> Alright - I'll bite. I continually see assertions about the lower TCO
> of NT x compared to unix, but I'm yet to see a credible study.
You admit your bias and lack of trust below - what good would it do to
present you ANY study. You'll simply not trust it and that'll be that. why
bother...
<snip>
> BTW, I don't especially trust any vendor's TCO fgures. Sun's are dubious
> ... but MS's are farcical!
> and as a parting shot - the NT box should have had *much* better disk
> performance, but a kernel-mode webserver strikes me as a benchmark
> special. Read that as you may.
According to linux evangilists, we're told that NT is SOOOOOOO slow and
unreliable, not only should NT have been 100% slower but it should have
crashed at least 20 times during testing and never even completed a single
pass due to memory leaks in the screen savers and the inability to stay up
and running for more than an hour or two (according to the likes of MiG and
stickybear and others in COLA)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:27:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:47:57 GMT
<hWD76.28007$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93m071$fip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.interbase2000.org/
>>
>> InterBase was released as open source at the end of July 2000. A complete
>> backdoor was discovered when examining the source. This backdoor has existed
>> in the commercial versions of the code since 1994 and appears to have been
>> known about for some time and used by at least one Borland/Inprise engineer.
>>
>> There's also a discussion on Slashdot :
>> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/01/11/1318207.shtml
>
>Ok, that's one example of one GOOD thing about Open Source. However,
>unfortunately, it's not the norm. Especially on large projects like Linux.
>Bugs are still being discovered in the kernel (not at as fast a rate,
>granted, but they're there and still being discovered). Some are old bugs,
>some are new bugs from new code.
>
>Some of these bugs had existed for quite some time. Why weren't
>they discovered immediately?
Whereas Windows 2000 is completely and totally bug-free and can be
relied upon for the utmost in reliability and comfort for both
the casual user and the highly competent IT/CSO [*] professional,
while running both older Windows programs and emulating DOS packages.
Because it's closed-source, bugs are never a problem, and indeed are
fixed a few seconds after release in a handy-dandy Service Release,
adding new functionality at the same time.
Because it's brand new code, it has the smallest memory footprint knwon
to any IT/CSO professional, function for function.
Because it's Microsoft, it's tried, true, tested, and ubiquitous.
You just can't go wrong.
(Spot The Flaws.)
>
>-Chad
>
>
[*] Chief Security Officer.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- hint: look below; granted 2 days isn't much :-)
EAC code #191 2d:16h:34m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 12 Jan 2001 14:29:11 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 11 Jan 2001 19:16:39 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >SWC is not a web server. Get it through your head!
> >
> >AND, remember, Tux beat windows by a whopping 2.7% - woo hoo!!! A whole
2.7%
> >and they had to go into kernel space to do it.
> >
> >I have never seen Tux in production, IIS (and SWC) is out there.
>
> Where?
>
How would you expect me to SHOW you the proof that SWC is out there?
Netcraft doesn't report it so...? It's being sold and is being currently
developed and upgraded - it's like asking for proof bic lighters are in
use - where's the URL for that?
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 12 Jan 2001 14:29:13 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > SWC is not a web server. Get it through your head!
> >
> > AND, remember, Tux beat windows by a whopping 2.7%
>
> You got the order of events wrong. Tux beat iis by more like 250% -
> then, after months of frantic, all-out effort, the best microsoft could
> do is come close to the Linux result with their new "benchmark buster"
> product.
>
> > - woo hoo!!! A whole 2.7%
> > and they had to go into kernel space to do it.
>
> Nope, tux ran in userspace for the specweb tests.
>
> > I have never seen Tux in production, IIS (and SWC) is out there.
>
> I've never seen swc, but Tux is available, for free - today.
>
> jjs
>
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 12 Jan 2001 14:32:09 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > SWC is not a web server. Get it through your head!
> >
> > AND, remember, Tux beat windows by a whopping 2.7%
>
> You got the order of events wrong. Tux beat iis by more like 250% -
> then, after months of frantic, all-out effort, the best microsoft could
> do is come close to the Linux result with their new "benchmark buster"
> product.
we're talking about the results in 2000Q4 - 7500 vs 7300 - do the math.
>
> > - woo hoo!!! A whole 2.7%
> > and they had to go into kernel space to do it.
>
> Nope, tux ran in userspace for the specweb tests.
Proof? Not denying, just asking for the proof, I don't see it in the specweb
document.
>
> > I have never seen Tux in production, IIS (and SWC) is out there.
>
> I've never seen swc, but Tux is available, for free - today.
SWC is available right this second from MS and it's resellers. It's been
available for some time, version 3 (which they used) is in final beta and
will be released March (after further performance tweaking).
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 12 Jan 2001 14:33:13 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 06:40:20 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> >> SWC is not a web server. Get it through your head!
> >>
> >> AND, remember, Tux beat windows by a whopping 2.7%
> >
> >You got the order of events wrong. Tux beat iis by more like 250% -
> >then, after months of frantic, all-out effort, the best microsoft could
> >do is come close to the Linux result with their new "benchmark buster"
> >product.
>
> This much is obvious merely by looking at the dates on the
> benchmarks submitted for webbench 99.
>
> [deletia]
Fact: Current high Tux 2 score, 7500
Fact: Current high IIS5 score, 7300
Fact: 200 difference from 7500 is approx. 2.7%
Fact: there are remedial math classes available
Why not find some ancient IIS3 benchmark and declare Tux 2 beats it by
10000% - what's the value in that? Silly...
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 12 Jan 2001 14:40:08 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93mbpa$p17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's very likely
a
> duck. Microsoft's own in-kernel SWC 2.0 web page (the outdated SWC
version)
> at http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/iis/swc2.asp says that this 'front-end
> cache' accepts and answers web requests, logs those requests into its own
> separate binary logfile, and supports only the HTTP 1.0 protocol. The
> Microsoft SWC 3.0 SpecWeb99 submission webpage (I couldnt find information
> about SWC 3.0 anywhere else) at
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
> says that SWC 3.0 has its own dynamic API as well: "TWC 3.0". If this
> in-kernel web-thing accepts web requests, serves web requests, logs web
> requests and provides ways to write dynamic webpages, then it's what? A
> webserver. Surprisingly, the SpecWeb99 benchmark (check out the functional
> specification at http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/) needs these webserver
> features, little more. I repeat, from the submission page it's pretty
clear
> that little if any IIS 5.0 code was running in this test - nothing makes
this
> more apparent than the fact that no IIS 5.0 tuning was done at all on this
> system! For example compare it with the IIS 5.0 tunings done in the
> following, much much slower 4-CPU SPECweb99 Windows 2000 / IIS 5.0 result:
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000612-00049.html
.
> This submission page is full of IIS 5.0-specific tunings, while the SWC
3.0
> submission has none at all! IIS 5.0 was probably just taking away some
space
> on disk and RAM, and was idling around - this was probably the best it
could
> have done to help get a better result ;-) Obviously this is not what
> Microsoft PR wants us to believe though :-)
>
You are really dense aren't you? SWC is a web CACHE - do you know what the
word cache means? Do you understand how a web cache works? Obviously not.
Where do you think the pages the cache is supplying were generated????? Do
you think the cache created the pages??? HELLO???!!! Doh!!! IIS5 created the
pages and if a static (keyword) page was requested again and it hadn't
expired it was served by the cache and not by IIS, all the dynamic pages
were served by IIS5 time and again.
I mean, really - you enter a technical conversation without any
understanding of how a web server and/or cache works and expect us to read
that crap? Gee - did you think that no one at specweb would notice something
clever like, gee, they didn't use a web server, they just served up
pregenerated and cache pages (amazingly they have time travel worked out so
they could pregenerate even the dynamic content to serve up from the cache).
And, SWC does not run in the kernel, neither does IIS5.
(not that I care really, I only make fun of Tux being in the kernel to
remind linux loosers about how much they tried to give NT advocates grief
because NT runs speed critical components in the kernel - nice to note that
tux/linux is merely acknowledging the NT method of doing things as the best
and copying it, like they have copied everything else).
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:44:16 +0000
Yatima wrote:
> >Going backwards?
> >
>
> How is it backwards? Just because GUI interfaces are more recent it does
> not *automatically* make them better.
I was being sarcastic. CLI's are from the '70's. That doesn't make them
worse, just backward in time.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 12 Jan 2001 14:42:11 -0600
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93ikop$2co$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Conrad,
>
> > > Anyone want to guess why Microsoft's Linux Myths:
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
> > >
> > > Have not been updated since 1 November 1999?
> > >
> > because it served it's purpose then and linux hasn't overcome the
problems
> > outlined in that document in over a year...
>
> Here's some useful quotes:
>
> "Linux performance and scalability is architecturally limited in the 2.2
> Kernel."
>
> Wouldn't want to mention the 2.4 kernel would we?
As 2.4 was released a few days ago, you think this 1999 document might not
have had the precognition to know this?
>
> "The Linux community continues to promise major SMP and performance
> improvements. They have been promising these since the development of the
> 2.0 Kernel in 1996."
That is accurate and until 2.4 is benchmarked and proven it remains true.
>
> "Linux lacks a commercial quality Journaling File System."
Still true. Unless you mean that add-ons are considered part of the kernel
now?
>
> "There are no commercially proven clustering technologies to provide High
> Availability for Linux."
Nov 1999 there weren't.
>
> "Linux is a higher risk option than Windows NT."
Continues to be.
>
> "Linux Security Model Is Weak"
Always has been.
>
> Many of the comments border upon outright lies when read in the light of
> Linux today. Most of the rest are FUD and were FUD even back then.
>
> Maybe Microsoft doesn't have the resources to update an article that is
over
> a year old and clearly misrepresentative of Linux today.
Or they don't care. OR, perhaps, they are waiting for 2.4 to settle in
(2.4.1 is already being tested) before updating it ...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
