Linux-Advocacy Digest #470, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (J Sloan)
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: More Linux woes (mlw)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Jan Johanson")
The Linux Show! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (J Sloan)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Interconnect")
Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("Jan Johanson")
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:35:17 GMT
Only if you exclaim that your crappy app can't exist because the OS is "so
perfect".
Like many people on COLA have been saying.
"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93tk7a$f4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If I wrote a BAD piece of software that forced Windows or Linux to hang
does
> that make the OS unstable?
> A. No.
>
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Mark Addinall wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steve Mading wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > At this point, I'd say there isn't a damn thing I can do with it,
> even
> > > > > though clearly *something* is still running, since the mouse
pointer
> does
> > > > > move on the screen.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a powerswitch-reboot situation. There's nothing else to
do.
> > > > >
> > > > > In that case it doesn't matter if the underlying OS is crashed
> > > > > or not, I can't talk to it in any way shape or form.
> > > > >
> > > > > This happens to me about once a month on Linux. (It happens more
> often
> > > > > on Windows, but it *does* happen on Linux too). I'd say that
counts
> > > > > as being "frozen".)
> > > > >
> > > > > It always happens when running Netscape, and always when its stuck
> > > > > while bringing up a menubar pull-down menu. I think X is grabbing
> > > > > more input types than it needs to and then not releasing it.
> > > >
> > > > Better check your memory chips.
> > >
> > > Dunno. Looks like software. I've had this happen to me once.
> > > Although since using Linux since 1.1.13 I'm not complaining.
> > >
> > > What I do find is netscape chews into swap over an extended
> > > period of time, and thrashes the disk. Moreso when so
> > > is loaded. Fighting for resource?
> >
> > Add memory. This will stop the thrashing.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Mark Addinall
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:41:16 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93tl9t$3p5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I was wondering why playing an audio CDROM (like you would buy in the
> > store) seemed to cause intermittent skipping when dragging windows or
> > doing any other activity under Linux Mandrake 7.2 so I decided to
> > investigate today.
> > The CDROM is an Acer 40x on the second IDE controller and it has a
> > digital cable (no analog) hooked to a SBLive in the system.
>
> > I played an audio CD and started to poke around the system enabling
> > and disabling digital audio with the KDE Mixer and things were acting
> > strange?
>
> > I unplugged the digital cable (the little 2 prong Berg connector)
> > while the CD was playing and to my surprise the sound CONTINUED to be
> > heard!!!
>
> > This sucker was, for some reason, doing Digital Audio Extraction over
> > the IDE bus!!!
>
> > No wonder things were acting strange....
>
> > Score another hit against Linsux for misconfiguring this one.
> > Ok Penguinista's, how to I disable this so my system isn't being
> > slowed to a crawl every time I play an audio CD?
> You read the documentation, you goddamn retard. For once.
> Just read the fucking instructions already and stop being an idiot.
There are no instructions. I've never seen Linux get caught in DAE mode.
He could waste HOURS in the howto's learning some idyllic little factoid
about how Linux worked two years ago, but that would be pointless (like the
entire Linux endeavor).
So, the question remains, how DOES he get DAE mode disabled, and revert back
to "regular" mode?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:27:36 +0200
"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93tk7a$f4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If I wrote a BAD piece of software that forced Windows or Linux to hang
does
> that make the OS unstable?
> A. No.
B. Yes. The OS should prevent a user-class application from making the
system unstable.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:33:22 +0200
"ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93t97f$4u6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >What the hell are you smoking? I see tons of Linux software with
> staticly
> > >linked library files.
> >
> > Then name a few.
> Could you give the name of some dll's that give hell? (like in dll-hell).
MFC40.DLL, I believe, didn't have DLL-Hell problem for a *long* time, not
sure.
There are several versions of this files, and the problem results (all
DLL-Hell problems, acutally) from installers that doesn't check for versions
before they replace important files, this they remove the newer version for
an older version, and break other applications (and sometimes that OS) that
need the newer version of the DLL.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:44:04 GMT
"Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0at86.123$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> <snip ramblings>
> Here, sir, is a simple solution to all of your linux woes:
> Don't use linux.
> Now wasn't that hard?
Gee, makes you wonder why no respectable company will even go near Linux.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:48:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well put Kyle.
Somehow I expected you'd approve of this sort of
nonsense - no matter how inane, illogical, or incorrect,
as long as it slams Linux, you're the head cheerleader.
> >Linux has no quality software.
If apache is not "quality software", why is it eating microsoft's
lunch in web server market share?
If sendmail is not "quality software", why is it the #1 mail transport
agent on the internet?
If bind is not "quality software", why is it the de facto standard
internet name resolution software?
If Oracle is not "quality software", why is it the most popular
commercial database in the world?
If the Linux kernel is not "quality software", why is Linux the
specweb 99 speed champ? Why is it that nasa and others
depend on Linux for dependable supercomputing power?
Why do google, deja and amazon depend on Linux for their
day to day business?
Friend, I'm afraid you've sat through one too many microsoft
marketing spiels, and your brain has turned to mush.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: 14 Jan 2001 20:50:11 -0600
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93t6k7$10j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
>
> ---Begin Excerpt---
>
> " We are presented with two choices at this point, we can downgrade the
> operating system to Windows NT 4.0 and use the same high-end, extremely,
> fast network cards or we can stay with Windows 2000 and replace the
network
> cards with the lower-end, but still server-class, network cards. We have
> opted for the first plan as this is a configuration which we have used and
> know works. At this point, we do not want to experiment with our clients
> only to find out that the lower-end network cards are not sufficient to
the
> task.
>
> ---End Excerpt ---
Now hold on a second here!
#1) you excerpted a little sharply with the obvious intention of laying the
blame at Windows 2000's feet. This is unfair and the full quote in the
article places the blame where it belongs. This unnamed Tier one vendor has
promised them drivers for their high end network cards that would work with
W2K and they do not. This is not the fault of W2K as much as if your linux
box crashed with bad drivers is it the fault of Linux. We use the best Intel
co-processed NICs and they have never failed us once, never. They had solid
drivers out before W2K left beta. Since the vendor is unnamed we're only
left to guess.
#2) You also miss the points that NT4 is so stable for them that given the
chance to change not once buy twice (once up to W2K and once again down to
NT4) they continue to use MS NT. Obviously (and from experience) NT4 is very
stable and works great, great enough for Delphi. The NIC drivers caused
problems - ok, but to blame MS's product for another vendor's problems? How
about if I write some crappy drivers for Linux and when people use them and
linux crashes hard, can I say it's Linus' fault? See the point?
#3) If they were smart they'd have changed NIC's instead of changing OSes
twice. I mean, really... NICs are cheap in comparison to both the OS cost
and the cost to convert (in time/energy) and in the cost to the end users
opinion of Delphi's service. I mean, they'll think Delphi sucks, not W2K.
It's like the fact that my @home e-mail is the single worst e-mail
experience in over 2 million people's experience. @Home e-mail can take
hours to deliver, if at all. Their servers are constantly going up and down.
And most of the time they cannot handle the simultaneous connections - do we
declare that therefore solaris and sendmail suck and are incapable of
enterprise level operation? No, it's @home's fault for not scaling up
properly and handling the loads.
Smart people know where to lay the blame and in this case Delphi is taking
the easy way out and blaming the easy target - why don't they name the NIC
vender?? HMmmm??! Why didn't they simply change NICs?
Then again, this IS TheRegister reporting... scum pond of computing
"reporting"
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:54:15 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:0at86.123$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > <snip ramblings>
> > Here, sir, is a simple solution to all of your linux woes:
> > Don't use linux.
> > Now wasn't that hard?
>
> Gee, makes you wonder why no respectable company will even go near Linux.
Like IBM, for instance?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:52:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> In article <c8T76.31618$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> >Bones wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why are you re-installing the operating system after adding a hard disk?
>> >> Where did you pick this bad habit up?
>> >
>> >I removed the 2GByte disk as a museum piece. The 30GByte disk has a 4GByte
>> >partition for the system now, as well as a humungous /home partition, which
>> >is what I wanted.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>> >
>>
>> Well that makes sense.
>>
>> What would a total dumbass who appearently can't even upgrade Linux
>> without locking up his own system do with a large home partition?
>
>fill it full of porn.
>
I thought we gave the title of wet sock puppet to Chad.
>>
>> Pete,
>> If you do this again I want you to purge your DNA from the
>> human geneome pool.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Charlie
>
>
>--
>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: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 14 Jan 2001 20:53:12 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <j0P76.148$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> >Doesn't seem to be an issue, as NT has regularly beaten linux in all
sorts
> >of performance tests.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Name the test which showed NT beating Linux in anything?
>
Mindcraft I, Ia and II just to start the ball rolling :)
Too bad Linux can't compete in the TPC game... that would be another to
point to.
I remember some ZDNet tests that had IIS smoking Apache on linux but can't
find the link handy.
Funny... I can't remember hardly anything that has linux beating NT... 2.7%
"victory" in a web test is hardly much to look it, and it wasn't really an
OS battle as much as an HTTPD one...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 14 Jan 2001 20:54:12 -0600
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No, Tux kicked IIS's ass in specweb99. khttpd is a totally different
program.
> As far as I know there are no specweb results for khttpd.
Help me with this - do you consider 7500 vs 7300 (2.7%) "kicking ass?"
I sure don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: The Linux Show!
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:54:58 GMT
http://www.thelinuxshow.com
The show is back on again and playable in MP3 format.
Works great with XMMS.
These guys do a good show and it's a good listen.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:57:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:30:46 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Nope, works just fine with windows pc-lan attached printers,
> >unix printers, netware printers, or local printers.
>
> After how many hours screwing with smb.conf files?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
> Take a walk through CompUSA someday and try and find non PS printers
> that ARE supported by Linux.
> Same goes for scanners BTW.
Friom what I can see, just about any printer works with
Linux, except for the lame "win printers", which of course
any one building a Linux system would reject.
>
> Tell all the folks running those web pages to shut them down.
why?
> I didn't say anything about servers, you did. I was talking desktop.
> Stick to the subject.
Red Hat is not going after the desktop just yet.
They recommend Linux for servers or for technical
workstations. For an end user like yourself, it would
be recommended that you get a pre installed Linux
system, or get some college kid to set everything up.
> Running Linsux, you are going nowhere, fast and in most cases you are
> taking a huge step backwards, but you have been blinded so you can't
> see it.
I see windows every day, monkey boy - it just doesn't
impress me, sorry.
> Of course Linsux IS free, and thank goodness it is because they sure
> as hell can't sell it and the plunge the Linux stocks have been taking
> lately is evidence enough.
pot? kettle? black?
microsoft fell from 120 and tanked in the low 40s -
people have lost billions, and you talk about Linux
stocks falling?
Well, I figure logic is wasted on the likes of you anyhow...
Have a good time, claire/whatever you call yourself today.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:32:31 +1100
Unless you're running a beta kernel Linux is stable. Linux the OS that is :)
Yes Netscape is buggy, but it has improved. Since going open source mind you
;)
Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Flt86.73463$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Only if you exclaim that your crappy app can't exist because the OS is "so
> perfect".
>
> Like many people on COLA have been saying.
>
>
> "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93tk7a$f4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If I wrote a BAD piece of software that forced Windows or Linux to hang
> does
> > that make the OS unstable?
> > A. No.
> >
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Mark Addinall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve Mading wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At this point, I'd say there isn't a damn thing I can do with
it,
> > even
> > > > > > though clearly *something* is still running, since the mouse
> pointer
> > does
> > > > > > move on the screen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a powerswitch-reboot situation. There's nothing else to
> do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In that case it doesn't matter if the underlying OS is crashed
> > > > > > or not, I can't talk to it in any way shape or form.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This happens to me about once a month on Linux. (It happens
more
> > often
> > > > > > on Windows, but it *does* happen on Linux too). I'd say that
> counts
> > > > > > as being "frozen".)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It always happens when running Netscape, and always when its
stuck
> > > > > > while bringing up a menubar pull-down menu. I think X is
grabbing
> > > > > > more input types than it needs to and then not releasing it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Better check your memory chips.
> > > >
> > > > Dunno. Looks like software. I've had this happen to me once.
> > > > Although since using Linux since 1.1.13 I'm not complaining.
> > > >
> > > > What I do find is netscape chews into swap over an extended
> > > > period of time, and thrashes the disk. Moreso when so
> > > > is loaded. Fighting for resource?
> > >
> > > Add memory. This will stop the thrashing.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mark Addinall
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: 14 Jan 2001 21:04:13 -0600
(we're talking about the specweb results, of course)
Big deal, in the kernel or not - people - focus and remember this little
(and it is little) number: 2.7
That's how many percent faster Tux was over IIS5.
That's it - and that's what linvocates are so excited about?
Portions of Tux 2 appear to have run in kernel space and some in user space.
OK, whatever.
IIS 5 is known to run in userspace, this is undeniable. There is rumor that
IIS6 may have a kernel mode option too. Hey, why not? Of course, until Linux
had to run something in kernel space to win a benchmark, it was evil and
silly that NT should have anything in the Kernel. Oh, the jabs linvocates
took at nt advocates over "GUI in the kernel" - but of course, this is not a
problem when linux does it themselves...
I think people are missing the point - While Linux was running the tightest
possible benchmark busting configuration using a specialized, uncommon (rare
even) feature-poor web server and that's it - W2K was, by default, running a
host of other background services and carried with it the "baggage" of any
normal windows server - and yet still came to within 2.7% of that
unencombered linux box. Tell you what, fire up a GUI on that Linux box,
start up some more services - things unrelated to serving up pages. I'll bet
that tiny skinny margin disappears.
Oh, and remember mincraft? "4 NICs - who'd ever build a machine like that?
That's an unreal configuration!" the linvocates cried - and here we have a
cute 8 processor 8 NIC machine and due to a victory thinner than the skin on
a hen's front tooth, suddenly not a peep. Guess 8 NIC machines are just fine
when you're a nose ahead eh?
The hypocracy is thick...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:59:53 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:32:23 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:54:01 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:93l9sj$j98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> >> But they ALSO don't want to have to bluescreen and reboot at
>> >> unpredictable and frequent intervals;
>>
>> >That's bullshit. Most people don't have frequent bluescreens under
>> >Win9x.
>>
>> In another post you say your girlfriend's system fails once a month. I
>> count that as "frequent". My boss uses Win9x on his laptop and he was
>> just yesterday asking me if having failures once a week is normal.
>
>while "frequent" is a subjective term, I don't think a once a month failure
>is all that frequent for a consumer grade OS which is intended to be
>shutdown nightly.
I'd say that it was too damn frequent for something that costs that much money
with no corporate backing. You do know the Microsoft says that they are not
responisble for failure of their product if you didn't buy it directly from
them?
M$ fans often state "with linux, there's no one to sue if things don't work"
what they fail to mention, is that M$ won't take responsibility either. They
duck and jive to avoid having to back their product.
>
>> The majority of Win9x users _do_ have "frequent" failures, although they
>> don't always take the form of a BSOD. That's why MS offers NT and W2K,
>> isn't it?
>
>No, they offer it because that's the direction their entire business has
>been headed for the last 8 years.
>
Except of course for the bit when they said that the internet was a dead end,
and M$ Bob was the future...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:07:06 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:17:08 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > I'm operating under facts I heard in a debate not unlike this one several
>weeks
>> > back. I was under the impression (from what individuals in your situation
>were
>> > telling me) that Tux has a kernel component, or can operate in kernel mode.
>> > It was this mode that was used in the SpecWeb results to obtain the high
>numbers
>> > they achieved.
>> >
>>
>> In other words, you did no research of your own before blasting Tux. Your
>> confusing Tux and khttpd makes this quite clear.
>
>Well, people who know more about this than I, including the defenders of Linux
>were agreeing that the Tux used in SpecWeb99 was running in kernel mode. This
>is what spawned the debate as to whether the numbers really mean anything since
>no intelligent person would run a production web site in the kernel.
Glad that you agree that the "defenders of Linux" know more than you do
(presumeably about Linux)
>
>Now, if you're saying they were all wrong, then that's different.
perhaps what is being said is that your reading comprehension is poor? or that
some folks were wrong, and you prefered to assume the worst rather than
checking your facts. If someone on a newsgroup posts something that is
erroneous, and you promulgate it without checking, then you are as wrong as
they. After all, these are the same folks who you want to prove every anti-M$
statement they make, yet you want to take at face value something that is
anti-linux? hypocrite.
When I post something that I find out later is incorrect, I admit it and move
on. You could try that...
>Was the Tux use in that benchmark running kernel mode or not? In the previous
>debate, they said it was. If you're now saying it wasn't, then please provide
>a URL. So far, no one has debated that Tux was running kernel mode.
Several people have debated just that point, as this thread is evidence of.
Perhaps *you* could provide evidence of Tux being used in kernel mode for this
benchmark?
>> khttpd is a kernel mode web server.
>
>But we're not talking about that, we're talking about Tux.
>
>> Tux has a kernel component, but also has a user mode component. It was
>> designed to be stable and secure while at the same time providing high speed.
>Two
>> very different animals.
>
>I don't care, if you think it's "stable", if it runs in the kernel, then
>the risk of compromise is even higher than user-mode http servers.
>
Would this be the same Chad who claimed that NT's kernel mode GUI was no big
deal? the same Chad who decried the cautions of those of us who said kernel
mode GUI was inherently less stable?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
