Linux-Advocacy Digest #477, Volume #31 Mon, 15 Jan 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (.)
Re: The Linux Show! (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: More Linux woes ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) ("Robert J. Hansen")
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) ("Robert J. Hansen")
Re: Windows 2000 (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Windows 2000 (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: The Linux Show! (J Sloan)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("David Adams")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Chad Myers")
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Matthew Frost)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: 15 Jan 2001 07:57:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (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...
Why winvocates never use spell checkers is beyond me.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: 15 Jan 2001 07:58:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:54:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
> Ebert) wrote:
>>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.
> Now if you could only look at the trailers for your own movie
> Anti-Trust which are in QT4. format.
> Sad, this Linsux is....
I actually just tried to look at those on a windowsME box with
internet explorer.
It locked up and I had to powercycle the machine.
=====.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 07:59:33 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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.
Yes. We really need skilled manipulators with deep pocket to show off
the efficiency of Linux.
But hey, if you can put up about a million USD, I think I can provide
a Linux cluster setup that will beat anything else in TPC-C. I'd need
to look closer at the specs first, of course, but one Gb of RAM costs
about $500, and with a Tb available, the whole thing should be
possible to run completely without disk.
It would, of course, be even more pointless than the other clustered
TPC-C benchmarks, but that's what you're asking for, isn't it?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:03:17 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:14:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On 15 Jan 2001 01:55:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
> >>You read the documentation, you goddamn retard. For once.
> >>
> >>Just read the fucking instructions already and stop being an idiot.
> >
> >So why don't you enlighten me a little?
>
> Hey, bonehead, someone already did. Read mlw's posts again and try to
> understand what he's telling you.
>
> To paraphrase, in order to offer certain features the player has to read
> the data via the IDE buss. Turn off those features and it can play the
> CD the traditional way.
Give it up already.
Reason and this person are not aquatinted.
Whether it comes from stupidity or just a yen to insult something he/she/it
obviously doesn't like is certainly up for debate.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:03:18 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Yfp86.2938$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find backdoors.
> > >
> > > It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with thousands of people
> > > looking at the source code.
> >
> > Per my other post, there are exactly 35 developers on the Firebird
project.
> > Some of them have joined relatively recently. SourceForge shows that
no one
> > has downloaded their pre-release kits yet.
> >
> > Your "thousands of people" are as vaprous as closed-source security is.
>
> But what about the thousands who supposedly review Linux. From
developers,
> to watchdog groups, to tinkerers, you'd think most of the obvious bugs
would
> be flushed out immediately. However, every shipping Linux release from
> all major distributors still comes riddled with security exploits not to
> mention all other bugs. If Open Source is so superior, and all this
> peer review actually happens as you people say, then how are these
glaring
> bugs slipping through so frequently?
Its' impossible for all bugs to be rooted out of a large software project.
Only the most glaring and obvious show up quickly. It takes time for the
more subtle ones to present themselves. With open source, the option exists
to patch them as they come along as opposed to placing a bug report with a
vendor and counting on them to actually heed it and provide a patch in a
timely manner (or in some cases at all).
I find the fact that the open source bug reports are so pervasive is a good
thing. It shows that problems aren't denied or shoved under the carpet for
marketing reasons, as is often the case with closed source.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Robert J. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:09:44 GMT
> Java was proposed as language for coffee manchines, which should mean
TV cable boxes, actually, if I'm remebering correctly.
> that it should be able to run multithreaded on Z80 with 32K memory.
The coffeepots from the Sharper Image have 80186s (yes, 80186s).
> But actually simple java app which does function of typucall makefile,
> or 200-line Tcl script (I mean Oracle Installer, of course) can put
> 128Mb server to its knees.
I'd like to see this Java app. I've never seen any Java app bring my system
to its knees.
> (Of coursce, C++ is no better, it has all the drawbacks of Java and
> lacks its two only benefints - garbage collection and Unicode support).
<yawns> Try compiling to native code. Try "you don't pay for what you
don't use". Try operator overloading. Try non-virtual inheritance. Try
true multiple inheritance. Try generic programming.
Insofar as Unicode support, I'd suggest you take a look at C++'s wchar data
type. Guess what? :)
Please, if you're going to troll on language wars, try and find some valid
point to troll on.
------------------------------
From: "Robert J. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:09:46 GMT
> They've abandoned it becouse they have few kilobytes of memory
> and few thousands instructions per second in their disposal.
No, they abandoned it because they found better ways of doing things. :)
Remember, organic brains may or may not be deterministic Turing machines.
They may very well be nondeterministic Turing machines, or quantum Turing
machines, or some other variety. Trying to emulate a quantum TM or a
nondeterministic TM in a conventional TM is an exercise in futility.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:02:57 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> <[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.
>
>
If not, he also did not shoot the guys writing the software on sight.
He was totally incompetent to spot the flaws, and in 10 YEARS (or 15, as
you put it) was not able to overcome those early design failures.
A company like that deserves to be out of business at once (just to protect
the unwary customers)
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:08:59 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> What the hell are you talking about? Word 98 is the *MAC* version. Word
> 97
> is the PC version as is Word 2000. Nobody "jumped on the bandwagon" and
> converted to Word 98 unless they also converted to Macintosh, in which
> case they're not going to be converting back.
>
>
Word in ANY version is just plain shit.
I have NEVER encountered a software so riddled with bugs that even
Windows(any version) will just pale in contrast.
Has anyone actually tried to insert any sizeable number of pictures into a
text and did NOT experience the weirdest things (like text moving somewhere
else, picture moving somewhere else, text AND picture totally vanished
after saving etc etc), THAT is Word
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:23:28 GMT
"." wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:54:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
> > Ebert) wrote:
>
> >>http://www.thelinuxshow.com
>
>
> I actually just tried to look at those on a windowsME box with
> internet explorer.
>
> It locked up and I had to powercycle the machine.
LOL!
What did you expect from windows?
BTW I just went there with Netscape and its all good....
The show link works with either mpg123 or xmms -
jjs
------------------------------
From: "David Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:09:36 +0100
> 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?
I do not know if those numbers are correct but if so ... well,
is it anything wrong ?
> 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...
Kernel httpd is OPTIONAL.
> 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.
What's more, Linux does not need to launch a GUI, so hardware will always
be used to serve :-) Why should we launch any GUI or unrelated web server
services in a web server ?
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:31:22 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:15:25 +0100, Peter Köhlmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >You and flathead are the two most unpleasant liars here in c.o.l.a, you
> >tell whatever lie whenever you feel like it.
> >Bring FACTS, not lies!
>
> FACT I installed Mandrake 7.2 with various different options including
> "everything".
>
> FACT Install everything has a different meaning depending upon where
> you select it. IE: Under the first menu, or Custom->Install
> Everything.
>
> FACT The install program has a mind of it's own, and selecting Expert
> and no hardware probing has no effect as it probes anyway, in fact if
> you watch the messages at the bottom of the screen you can see it
> probing for your mouse the minute you hit enter.
>
> FACT Take the same options several times and you may or may not end up
> with the same packages installed.
>
> FACT When it asks for the second CD if you don't move the mouse over
> the OK box and hit enter instead (we all know how much you
> Penguinista's hate mice, so you better watch this one) you will NOT
> install anymore packages even though the OK box is the HIGHLIGHTED
> BOX. The install just continues, but you will find out later that you
> missed a lot of packages off the second CD.
>
> FACT Sometimes the left mouse button using Enlightenment brings up a
> menu and other times it does not, depending upon what the install
> program decided it wanted to do.
>
> FACT Try installing Enlightenment after doing a standard install and
> see how many dependencies are missing and cannot be resolved without
> searching all over the CD's to find them. Funny, it works if you
> install Everything from the beginning, but then again that depends
> upon which "Install Everything" option you pick.
>
> FACT I can either get 3d acceleration, or 2D but I take a performance
> hit on one or the other depending upon which XFRee I chose (3.x or
> 4.x)
> The Matrox card has only been out for a couple of YEARS or so,
> but maybe in another 3 years it might work correctly.
>
> FACT 75dpi Fonts are installed by default, which make everything look
> painfully small. Increasing the font size only makes them look more
> jagged. Solution go and edit a config file and swap the order of 75dpi
> and 100dpi as they appear in the file. This doesn't include the time
> wasted scouring the net to find this wonderful "Font De-Uglification
> How-To".
>
> FACT It screws up detection of my Matrox G200 as far as amount of
> memory is concerned.
>
> FACT If you choose to set up network and later try and set up ICS it
> won't work.
>
> FACT kppp, the default dialer that gets installed doesn't have a dial
> on demand feature, which kind of makes ICS useless unless you are on a
> cable network. BTW checking a single box under Win2k makes this work
> fine.
>
> FACT Linux installs in the default with all kinds of ports open to
> attack.
>
> FACT The SBLive STILL does not allow digital audio. Funny seeing as
> this card is at least 3 years old and Win2k shipped with drivers while
> Linux has been working on them for years.
>
> FACT There STILL is no decent Web Browser for Linux.
>
> FACT reading News offline is still a conglomeration of programs and
> their various set up files.
> PAN doesn't even stay up long enough without segfaulting to be
> useful.
>
> FACT my Scanner doesn't work.
>
> FACT my USB devices don't work.
>
> FACT my Logitech Wheel mouse is mis identified and if I select
> Logitech from DrakConf it never works again and I am mouse less.
>
> I could go on for hours with this but why bother. People try Linux,
> and they dump it just as quickly mostly because it is a joke compared
> to Windows.
>
> FACT The truth hurts and Linux sucks and that is the truth.
>
> Conclusion: Linux in it current state is not fit for consumption by
> desktop Joe.
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
FACT: You've so little credibility here that your posts are viewed as a
comedic diversion and little else.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:58:43 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a6264e6$0$21265$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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"
Ah yes, The Register. A wealth of disinformation, bias, and examples
for journalism school how not to conduct yourself.
Unfortunately Jan, your logic is wasted on these people. You could
say the same thing about Linux, and they'd call you an idiot, but
somehow it's ok to blame Win2K for everything, including 3rd parties.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:59:01 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 15 Jan 2001 01:54:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>
> >You're an idiot, chad.
>
>
>
> Well at least I am in good company.
Insults from ./yttrx are actually compliments.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:46:47 GMT
"Stuart R. Fuller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Charlie Ebert <charlie> wrote:
> : Linux has the BEST uptime record of any operating system in the
> : world.
>
> Well, between Windows and Linux, that might be true. However, there's
more to
> the world than Linux and Windows.
>
Not in this neck of the woods, my friend! ;)
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 00:31:34 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:19:13
> >"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.
>
> I'm sorry, there comes a point where your fabrications become so obvious
> that no reasonable person could possibly believe they are anything but,
> in fact, fabrications. That you 'happened' to 'absolutely need' a
> single file to be larger than 2GB, I can barely believe (it is one of
> the favorite "what Linux can't do" in many misinformed and ill-informed
> discussions, generally resolving to a mistaken belief about the
> relationship between files and data stores <and an assumption they're
> identical>).
No fabrication Max. Sorry that you're incapable of comprehending it,
but we worked with several minute long, high definition digital videos
that would range from 1GB to 8 or 9GB in length.
We were low on budget and my boss suggested I look into linux.
If you look in the archives, you'll notice I posted an open request
to several Linux newsgroups asking what the optimum configuration for
my storage needs would be (how to properly set up mac connectivity,
how to best squeeze file serving performance from Linux, etc).
It was then that I learned that Linux couldn't handle >2GB files on
a 32-bit platform (something that it still has a problem with today!).
Well, it was unfortunate, because that was one of the critical
requirements for this server. Sure, the video team could've broken
up these videos, but that just adds yet more time to their arduous
video editing process and they wouldn't have been very happy with me.
> But that it 'never failed you once' is not in the
> slightest bit credible.
Hmm, well, whatever. The linux system probably wouldn't have failed me
either, but the problem was, I couldn't use it at all, oh well.
Really, the Win2K SFM stuff is really great. The server was set up
soon after Win2K was released and as far as I know, it's still going.
I left that place in June of 2000.
Before that, we had an NT server 4.0 doing the job and it had an up
time of around 300 days. It had failed me once due to a power failure
that affected the whole block for 6 hours. I don't consider that NT's
fault.
This box served up several terra-bytes to the clients and about
as many to the DLT tape backup to which we archived all the finished
videos. The file system, nor NT, nor the services for Macintosh ever
hick-uped once.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Matthew Frost <[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
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:05:11 -0600
Steve Mading wrote:
> 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.
Excellent explanation of the problem. This is one of the major ways
that MS breaks a programming language, after ubiquitous and
compatibility-negating API-specific extensions. They tie a language
into its compiler and interface program in such a way as language
development becomes development of the GUI, GUI development becomes
language development, and nothing black and white can be done in
anything like the method one would use for the standards-compliant
version. It's the whole MS philosophy of "What the user can't see, is
irrelevant," which in normal, sane hacks results in WYSIWYG and
literal-responsive command structure. However, it hasn't taken long for
it to turn into GUI, GUI, uber allus. Find me a command line interface
in NT or W2K, or one in W9x from which you can navigate and use the
entire system unhampered. I don't think it exists! When you build
everything around the GUI, you increase the complexity, and consequently
the cruft, geometrically. This is fine if God is building the system,
but a team of corporate programmers can't avoid stepping on their own
heels and tripping over a corpus that takes so much change to fix any
one thing and assure the continued function of anything else. A
language is a language. You *should* be able to code it on paper, as
someone so sarcastically presented up above. Wild and crazy idea, isn't
it? <grin>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
