Linux-Advocacy Digest #475, Volume #31 Mon, 15 Jan 01 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!? (Steve Mading)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(Steve Mading)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Jim Richardson)
Re: More Linux woes (Jim Richardson)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The real truth about NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!?
Date: 15 Jan 2001 06:03:43 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> That just repeats what was already said. My question was *why* this
:> is the case. I can't see it.
: Gas pumpers' union?
That seems odd to me, coming from a place where the last time I
saw a full-service gas station was in the early 1980's, and even
then it was considered a bit of a throwback that was only being
done because the guy who owned the place liked doing things the
old-fashioned way.
I've always associated gas attendants with movies about the '50s.
Was the practise revived in New Jersey, or is it something they've
been doing all along and never dropped? (New Jersey is a bit
odd when it comes to automobiles. When I was out there I couldn't
understand the logic behind all those 'jughandle' intersections where
you turn right to go left. If it was an actual ramp then it makes
sense, but when it merely results in a perpendicular crossing of
the intersection instead of a left-turn use of the intersection it
looks to me like it just makes things worse.)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 15 Jan 2001 06:16:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine
:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
:> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:> : wrote
:> : on 9 Jan 2001 20:58:53 GMT
:> : <93fu2d$ib4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
:> :>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> :>: Yup. At least until it gets a Linuxal Basic that is better than Visual
:> :>: Basic.
:> :>That's already happened.
:> : Just out of curiosity -- where?
:> I was being somewhat sarcastic. ANY basic is "better than Visual Basic".
: You're an idiot. Mind showing me the complete list of all Basic computer
: languages then?
Hint: I wasn't being completely serious. I even *labelled* myself as
being sarcastic, for crying out loud.
If you want pendantic seriousness, then fine, here it is:
There are many basics that I consider "better" than Visual Basic.
There do exist some basics that are worse, but they aren't modern.
Part of the reason for this is that I don't like embedded GUI
toolkits and auto code generators, becuase they are a pain in the
ass to maintain when you want to change what the tool generated,
and yet still keep using the tool to edit it too. So, all the
GUI bells and whistles are irrelevant to me. Once that's taken
away, there isn't much left in Visual Basic that makes it good.
In other words, the good stuff isn't technically part of the
language at all. It's part of the programming environment. IMO,
the programming tool should be independant of evaluating the
language itself. They should be seperated very clearly into two
layers such than the GUI programming tool is a pluggably replacable
by a third party. This ensures that language and compiler design
issues don't leak into the interface tool, and interface design issues
don't leak into the compiler itself.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:22:50 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:z2r86.109$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yes, there was a long history of such in the
scientific and perhaps even
> > > banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
> >
> > 6502? 6800? 68000? 68030? Of all the
microprocessors available at
> the
> > time the only ones that I can think of that were little
endian were Intel
> or
> > Intel compatible.
>
> And your point is what? The early years of the PC
industry were entirely
> Intel based. I'm not talking about Apple II's or
Commoodre 64's here, but
> rather business machines bought by businesses. Back
then, the mainframe
> people (even inside IBM) thought PC's were a fad that
would pass and put
> nearly no effort into connectivity between systems. The
only way to
> communicate at the time for most people was BBS's, and
even then people
> didn't exchange documents.
Ummm...Yes, we did. Frequently, in fact. And we weren't
limited to ASCII either.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:22:53 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:c6o86.85$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Fzn86.57932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Can't you just, for one minute, stop thinking about
how the computer
> > > industry works today and think about how it worked
10-15 years ago when
> > > these formats were created? There was no
interoperability then, it
> wasn't
> > > an issue. This is just the result of legacy code.
> >
> > 10-15 years ago there was already a long history of
wildly different
> > CPU types with variations in word size and bit/byte
ordering - and
> > unix already ran on most of them with interchangeable
data files.
> > You can't pretend that the lock-in that the Microsoft
file formats
> > caused was not intentional - unless you want to claim
that they
> > were complete idiots, unaware of the rest of the
industry or even
> > the Macintosh.
>
> Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific
and perhaps even
> banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
The PC industry had its' fair share of that too. You have
to remember that, early on, Intel wasn't the only player. A
lot of us utilized Motorola, Zilog , and Digital's flavor
of the week. Interoperability wasn't easy but it happened.
Intel's eventual dominance, though I thought it was an
inferior platform from a programmer's point of view
(Segmented architecture), was actually quite welcome . It
made things easier.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:22:55 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:43:03 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:Fzn86.57932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Can't you just, for one minute, stop thinking about
how the computer
> >> > industry works today and think about how it worked
10-15 years ago when
> >> > these formats were created? There was no
interoperability then, it
> >wasn't
> >> > an issue. This is just the result of legacy code.
> >>
> >> 10-15 years ago there was already a long history of
wildly different
> >> CPU types with variations in word size and bit/byte
ordering - and
> >> unix already ran on most of them with interchangeable
data files.
> >> You can't pretend that the lock-in that the Microsoft
file formats
> >> caused was not intentional - unless you want to claim
that they
> >> were complete idiots, unaware of the rest of the
industry or even
> >> the Macintosh.
> >
> >Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific
and perhaps even
> >banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
>
> So? Are you trying to tell us that BillyBob was so
incompetent
> and disinterested in his 'beefier' potential rivals that
he
> was completely unaware of any of that?
His company was pretty much tied to IBM/Intel from the
get-go and for good reason because that's where the money
was.
>
> That would certainly explain the pace of technological
advancement
> at Microsoft in those days.
It mirrored IBM's conservative mindset. Being bleeding edge
isn't a smart business move in the long term.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:22:56 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6Uo86.96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >Yes, there was a long history of such in the
scientific and perhaps even
> > >banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
> >
> > So? Are you trying to tell us that BillyBob was so
incompetent
> > and disinterested in his 'beefier' potential rivals
that he
> > was completely unaware of any of that?
>
> It's not like Bill Gates was personally writing the
software.
I was under the impression that, early on, he was very
"hands-on" with the development end of things.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:44:00 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:49:17 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93tana$qau$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fns39.13o.ln@gd2zzx...
>> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
>> >
>> > This is a driver issue only, not a problem with Win2k (unless you count
>> > poor 3rd party drivers to be a problem with the OS, in which case Linux
>> > has even more problems there).
>> >
>> > The other point brought up in the article about lack of certified
>software
>> > is also a red herring. Software doesn't have to be certified to run
>> > flawlessly. I think most companies are simply waiting for Whistler to
>> > certify to save money.
>>
>> Weeeeellllll... so vendors dont even bother to release drivers for the
>"top
>> OS".. Uhh... did someone mention "tremendous learning curve" and "cost"
>> and "complex" and "availability" and "interobility problems"..
>
>Why are you people so incapable of reading? There *ARE* drivers for it,
>they're just not good drivers. There's a difference between certifying your
>drivers and software and releasing it.
So are you saying here that some of the drivers which are claimed to work with
W2K are not released? So what's the word for something that's claimed to be
available, yet isn't... Oh, I know, vapourware... that's it.
--
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 21:45:42 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 14 Jan 2001 20:54:12 -0600,
Jan Johanson, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"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.
considering that the first set of tests showed a much greater spread, and that
linux scaled pretty linearly per processor, wheras W2K+IIS saw only a bare 100%
improvement from 1 to 4 processors, yeah, I'd call that kicking ass...
--
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: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:47:28 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:56:02 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:09:41 +0000, pip
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> Every time I look a little deeper I discover another reason why Linux
>>> sucks, and I'm not even trying hard to find these things.
>>
>>Then go and use another OS. What's your problem? Someone is
>>forcing you?
>
>No, this is an advocacy group and in fact I have seen some of the very
>items I have complained about in the past incorporated into future
>Linux distributions so somebody is actually listening.
>
Of course, Linux improves day by day, it's good now, and it's only going to get
better.
--
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)
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:52:30 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:05:42 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:29:11 +0000, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>How do you read news offline, meaning you can download the
>messages/bodies read and reply and then spit them back to the server
>without having to be connected the entire time?
Use pan, or I think Knode (or is it knews?). Course, it's a trivial matter for
slrn+leafnode also, but pan is about as simple as it gets.
>
>
>>
>>Can I telnet into Windows 2000 and burn a CDROM?
>
>Why would you want to?
>Who mounts the CDROM for you (inserts the media into the burner)?
maybe it's a multidisk drive?
>>Can I telnet into Windows 2000 and shut it down?
>
>I never shut down, but I don't know if it is possible or not.
>
>>That's what Linux could do for me.
>
>Seems like weak reasons considering the abundance of quality,
>professional applications available for Windows compared to the junk
>available for Linux.
like apache? emacs and vim? the wealth of databases?
Maybe the apps *you* use are not available on linux, but the ones I do are,
and they are a damn sight easier to use from linux than they are from windows
(if they are even available on windows without mortgaging your house)
>
>>That's what it looks like Linux Mandrake is doing. Time to change distro.
>>Let's see... how much does a CD cost from my favourite emporium? £5? How
>>much does Windows 2000 Professional cost? £300? What am I to do? Line the
>>pockets of that company caught being naughty or get hold of free software.
>
>It depends on your particular needs. For me, $125.00 or so is well
>worth it in time and applications. Don't get me wrong I loathe MS, but
>they happen to make the best OS for the things I need to do and 90
>percent of the rest of the world seems to agree, at least for the
>desktop.
great, so use it. What's the big deal?
>>> I see Linux as a crude compromise between cost and time.
>>
>>I see Linux as cheap and fun. When it's not being frustrating.
>
>It's cheap, and it is interesting and someday it WILL be a major
>contender for the desktop.
for many desktops, it is now.
>I'm just not certain if I will be alive by the time that happens
>though, I am 40yo BTW.
you want to off yourself, that's pretty lame, and a poor solution to your
problems.
>Linux is a novelty that ends up folks systems because of curiosity and
>ends up in the trash can just as quickly because it does not satisfy
>the needs of the typical desktop user.
>I have seen it happen 100 times or more.
>
sure, Nasa is only using it for beowulf clusters 'cause W2k was so capable it
was boring...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:56:03 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93u2n6$9ce$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : Sure, show me a single counter-example of Linux displacing every copy of
> : Windows on every desktop of the world.
>
> At least you could *pretend* to know basic logic. Replacing all
> of them is not necessary to make your claim false. Do you know what
> the word "can" actually means? It doesn't have to imply "likely".
> Linux *CAN* replace Windows, but it isn't *LIKELY*. Can you see
> the difference?
Fine, I'll reword it just for you. Linux cannot replace Windows as the
major OS of choice today.
Happy?
> :> That's why it's a pretty
> :> stupid idea to make such a sweeping generalization in an
> :> argument. All it takes is a single example of someone replacing
> :> Windows with Linux, and the statement "Linux cannot replace Windows"
> :> becomes false. Go read the press releases for the last few years.
> :> While there aren't a *large* number of these examples, there are some,
> :> and all it takes is one single example to make your claim false.
>
> : No, I used the words Linux and Windows as a collective, not as an
> : individual. If I had said what you claim, I would have said "A linux
> : install can't replace a windows install" or something similar.
>
> Okay, so what you said was a totally pointless statement because it
> would have been true for any two things you pick, thanks for
> clearing that up. Using words the way tou did, "The automobile
> cannot replace the horse and buggy" - Why? well there still exist
> some horse & buggies out there used by the Amish, and apparently
> by your logic unless each and every horse and buggy is going to be
> replaced by an automobile, it's okay to say it "cannot" happen.
It has happened, Buggies are such a tiny minority today that they are
statistically inconsequential.
But, thanks for proving my point. Since there is no plural for Linux or
Windows, your phrasing used here is identical to my original phrasing.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:57:38 -0600
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:49:17 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93tana$qau$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9fns39.13o.ln@gd2zzx...
> >> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
> >> >
> >> > This is a driver issue only, not a problem with Win2k (unless you
count
> >> > poor 3rd party drivers to be a problem with the OS, in which case
Linux
> >> > has even more problems there).
> >> >
> >> > The other point brought up in the article about lack of certified
> >software
> >> > is also a red herring. Software doesn't have to be certified to run
> >> > flawlessly. I think most companies are simply waiting for Whistler
to
> >> > certify to save money.
> >>
> >> Weeeeellllll... so vendors dont even bother to release drivers for the
> >"top
> >> OS".. Uhh... did someone mention "tremendous learning curve" and
"cost"
> >> and "complex" and "availability" and "interobility problems"..
> >
> >Why are you people so incapable of reading? There *ARE* drivers for it,
> >they're just not good drivers. There's a difference between certifying
your
> >drivers and software and releasing it.
>
> So are you saying here that some of the drivers which are claimed to work
with
> W2K are not released? So what's the word for something that's claimed to
be
> available, yet isn't... Oh, I know, vapourware... that's it.
What the fuck. READ. The drivers are released, they are *NOT* certified.
You can get the drivers. Download them off the companies web site. They
simply have not gone through the MS certification program to verify that
they are reliable.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:02:45 -0600
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> My brother lives in Wasila Alaska, pop about 4000, he lives about 15 miles
out
> of town, he has a cable modem. Now it doesn't get much more rural than
Wasila,
> at least not without the occasional bear wandering through (opps, he gets
that
> too.) So your claim of rural areas can't get 56K is hyperbole.
A cable modem is not a dialup 56K x2 or v.90 modem. This argument is about
dialup modem connections, not faster than 33.6 alternatives.
Follow the freaking discussion.
> >>> >speeds of under 33.6, probably under 28.8. Let's just say 28.8.
Since
> >>> >there are 10 bits in each byte over modem (8 bits, 1 start, 1 stop
bit)
> >>> >that's 2880 bytes a second. To download 100 meg would take 9.6
hours.
> >>Even
> >>> >a basic Linux machine will be at least 300 Meg, so that's over 27
hours,
>
> A basic linux machine will fit onto a floppy.
Not one useable by a Linux newbie farmer.
> >>> >more than a day. Not "overnight".
> >>>
> >>> Total Bullcrap EF. They do!
> >>>
> >>> 56 K hot and read and the fiber line is just 2 miles away.
> >>
> >>Ok charlie, you've just completely shot your credibility on this story
(your
> >>credibility is shot anyways, but on this story you're lying).
> >>
> >>56K doesn't work with fiber lines. 56K works only on copper connected
> >>directly to a CO because it takes advantage of the lack of analog to
digital
> >>conversion. If you've got fiber between you and the CO, you get
multiple
> >>A/D conversions and it totally screws your ability to get more than
33.6.
>
> bzzzt!
>
> 56k (downloads note) are limited to one A-D link, which can be at the
fiber
> head, or at the CO, since the fiber is digital into the backbone, it works
fine
> with 56k.
You apparently don't understand how phone companies work. They build
central offices with switch equipment. You need a switch in order to route
your calls. Fiber heads aren't switches, they're multiplexers. The Digital
data needs to be converted back to analog in order to be used at the switch.
Fiber is used in remote areas as copper extenders, not as remote switches.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:59:52 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Rhv86.57990$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:c6o86.85$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Fzn86.57932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Can't you just, for one minute, stop thinking about
how the computer
> > > > industry works today and think about how it worked
10-15 years ago
> when
> > > > these formats were created? There was no
interoperability then, it
> > wasn't
> > > > an issue. This is just the result of legacy code.
> > >
> > > 10-15 years ago there was already a long history of
wildly different
> > > CPU types with variations in word size and bit/byte
ordering - and
> > > unix already ran on most of them with interchangeable
data files.
> > > You can't pretend that the lock-in that the Microsoft
file formats
> > > caused was not intentional - unless you want to claim
that they
> > > were complete idiots, unaware of the rest of the
industry or even
> > > the Macintosh.
> >
> > Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific
and perhaps even
> > banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
>
> Yes, that is what I have been trying to point out. The
PC industry
> didn't have data interchangeability because the leader in
> that industry did not want the customers to have it, not
because
> it was an unusual or even difficul+ªAncept.
None-the-less, data interoperability DID happen back then.
It just involved writing a butt-load of converters. That's
about all I ever got done.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 07:01:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 14 Jan 2001 20:39:41 GMT
<93t2qd$gob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:Rrj86.2343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > [snip]
>>> > >
>>> > > Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
>>> > > worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
>>> > > shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
>>> > > mean dittly squat.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > Where did you work? At a gas pump?
>>>
>>> 1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
>>> Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
>>> hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructure. Windows
>>> 2000 was the prime choice. It was the best performing, most stable
>>> server software to serve to both the Mac and PC video editing machines.
>>> Never failed us once.
>>>
>>> 2.) My current employer is releasing a product based on EJB. There is
>>> very little support, if any from major web application platform vendors.
>>> Some provide it, but it's a use-at-your-own-risk type situation. Sun
>>> Solaris and Windows 2000 were the platforms of choice.
>>>
>>> We tried it on Linux, but it performed less than half as well as the
>>> Solaris and Windows 2000 implementations.
>>>
>>> -Chad
>
>> One more thing I forgot to add...
>
>> Bottom Line:
>
>> Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
>> the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
>> tasks.
>
>Let me know when you can run w2k on a 244 node S/390 cluster.
Would www.bochs.com work? :-)
>
>
>-----.
>
>k
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- who doesn't think that horribly likely anyway
EAC code #191 3d:23h:47m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 07:02:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:57:45 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:45:19 -0500
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Let's see....CD-R
>> >
>> >Write once....and then it can't be used again.
>> >Capacity ... less than 1G.
>> >
>> >4mm DAT
>> >
>> >Write once....it's still good for several hundred RE-recordings
>> >Capacity... 2G - 25G
>>
>> As a personal note -- take it as you will -- I have a 4020i, a DAT,
>> and a SyJet. The 4020i has been problematical and finicky, and
>> is currently on my P90 firewall (yuck) because my other box -- a
>> PP200 -- doesn't seem to have a space for the interrupt and/or DMA
>> (I forget which) for the card coming with it. In short, I almost
>> never use it anymore.
>>
>> I also have an HP 4mm DAT drive. It was also problematical and
>> finicky; not sure why. (It might have been substandard media,
>> admittedly; its main problem was that it liked to go back and
>> forth and back and forth on the tape during restore. This
>> took a very long time...)
>
>How often do you run a cleaning tape through the thing?
Thought of that; it didn't help. Admittedly I haven't used
it for quite awhile, though.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:23h:48m actually running Linux.
Use the source, Luke.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
