Linux-Advocacy Digest #480, Volume #31 Mon, 15 Jan 01 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Open Source & security holes (Pablo)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Chad Myers")
Re: More Linux woes (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: More Linux woes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Benchmark tests - who cares? (Donn Miller)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (Ian Davey)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:42:34 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93ukgr$42t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad, I think both sides may have a point here. A comment in this thread
> suggested to read this URL:
> http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/07/20/1440204.shtml , it's a technical
> description of Tux. What appears to have happened is this: Tux serves
dynamic
> web pages (read: complex code) from userspace. It serves static web pages
> (read: simple stuff) directly from kernel-space. Tux also has the ability
to
> generate dynamic web pages in kernelspace, but this was not used in the
> SpecWeb99 test. From a security point of view this is a valid
architecture:
> the overwhelming majority of security problems originate from dynamic
code,
> serving static web pages is a well defined and simple thing.
I wouldn't say that SPECWeb99 is the place to look for sensible web
arcitecture.
Those machines are tuned for speed, and speed only.
This is fine in a benchmark, in RL, any sane sysadmin would tune those
machines very differently.
(Who put RAID-0 on a production machine, frex?)
> > > Chad, I found interesting bits of information at the Spec Web99 site:
> > > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99 . For example your question about Tux is
> > > probably answered by this URL:
> > > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/api-src/Dell-20001128.zip ,
Dell's Tux
> > > SpecWeb99 source code. This is the 'dynamic API' part of the test. It
is
> > > standard Unix user-space source code, not kernel code, so the dynamic
part
> > > was very likely running in userspace. So a faulty dynamic API cannot
crash
> > > the kernel. I hope this helps.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> >
> > Ok, here you go. If Thomas is correct, than this debate is over. I must
> > have been mistaken to think that Tux was operating in kernel mode. I got
> > this information from a previous debate on the same subject several
weeks ago.
> > The Linux supporters never questioned the claim that Tux was a
kernel-mode web
> > server, so I assumed it to be a fact.
> >
> > -Chad
> >
> > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Now, if you're saying they were all wrong, then that's different.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > -Chad
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > http://www.deja.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:43:13 +0200
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> J Sloan wrote:
> >
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Nope, wrong again - the wintrolls claimed that it's kernel mode.
> > I pointed out more than once what Tux architect Ingo Molnar
> > said, and I'll say it once again for your benefit:
> >
> > The specweb tests were done with a user mode Tux.
> >
> > Tux can run in either mode -
> >
> > khttpd, which you confused with Tux, is an experimental
> > in-kernel webserver (that takes about 26k of memory)
> >
> > jjs
>
>
> The early assumption was that tux was largely running in kernel space,
> and it took a while to clear this point up.
>
> Interestingly, it appears that "IIS 5" was actually "SWC 3" which is
> apparently a kernel-mode cache (which can update time-stamps). This
> also took some time to surface :-)
Where did you hear that?
Any sources to confim this? I'm asking, btw, not attacking.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
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 13:09:57 GMT
In article <jCq86.3690$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93t9b7$35j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Hi Chad,
>>
>> > > Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are flaky under the 2.4
>> > > Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?
>> >
>> > Sounds like a driver issue, wouldn't you say.
>> >
>> > Do you want to get into how bad drivers are on Linux?
>> >
>> > I don't think you do.
>>
>> Didn't I just ask: "Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are
>> flaky under the 2.4 Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?"
>>
>> Here's your opportunity to provide an example.
>
>The point is, there are good drivers and there are bad drivers on
>both Windows and Linux. I can show you several BAD video drivers on Linux,
>likewise, I can show you several BAD video drivers on Windows.
>
So whats the point here! HA HA HA!
Look Chad. There are GOOD posters and there are BAD POSTERS,
and the BAD POSTERS are really BAD.
>The cards they happened to be using must not have been that good because
>the company they bought them from couldn't write drivers properly.
>
>Most people use the Intel server cards and have never had problems with them.
>
>Those cards are used by Dell, Compaq, Gateway/ALR, Apple, Sun, and several
>other vendors because they're solid, come with well-written drivers, and
>seem to never fail.
>
>I could probably find some chincy NIC manufacturer that writes equally
>crappy drivers for Windows and Linux if I had the time and money, but
>I have neither, so I won't. But you get my point.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Chad is a Windows puppy dog.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Pablo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Source & security holes
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:17:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In article <93sa88$bif$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pablo wrote:
>
> > I've found a lot of sites about Open Source Software, but I would
like
> > to find a site that compare Open Source and commercial software. E.g
> > security holes, "Who get the patches first?" and so on. Anyone?
>
> This would be difficult to find out at best, since it would require
some
> type of industrial espionage for every closed-source private company
> involved. Just because CompanyX's PR department denies or skates
around a
> security issue does not mean they are ignoring it internally as well.
>
> Personally, I would like to see a collection of information about how
> quickly patches are applied by people who use the software. *That*
would be
> interesting.
>
> ----
> Bones
>
Yes,thanks, and you are right about that. We are going to do some
research about open source and security, but I guess we'll have to
change focus a little as it would be hard to investigate things like
how fast patches are released - just as you said. Hmm...I think I'm
having second thoughts about the whole thing ;-) Damn, but Open Source
is interesting...is there anyone who could give us a hint of what would
be possible to measure or investigate? (Related to Open Source &
Security)
/Pablo
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:21:11 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:ga2r39.p5i.ln@gd2zzx...
> In article <pxZ76.759$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Ah... so the falacy comes to light.
> >
> > ReiserFS itself isn't shipping. It's still in beta, and it's
> > still not stable.
> >
> > Suse, however, has been including the beta version in its
> > distributions for people to mess with, but it's, in no way,
> > the default FS because, of course, it's not stable.
> >
> > Why don't you just tell the truth, J Sloan?
>
> He is telling the truth. SuSE have been including reiserfs with
> several distributions. They have contributed extensively with
> reiserfs devolpment. They have used reiserfs on their own servers
> for a long time. SuSE support many companies using their OS,
> visit www.suse.de to find out, and it was because of this they
> spent a lot of resources helping reiserfs development as their
> customers wanted it. Now why don't you just play with your toy
> OS and stop posting crap all the time Chad Myers?
<sigh>
I wish you people would stop joining into the middle of the
thread and misquoting me.
He said that ReiserFS was shipping, which is a lie. SuSE includes
it in their distributions, no one is debating that. I'm sure
SuSe contributes too, but who cares. ReiserFS is not complete,
it's not shipping, and hasn't been thoroughly tested, It's
included as an option for testing/curiosity.
In either case, it's still nothing like NTFS5, so this whole
argument is irrelevant.
Linux still doesn't have anything near an enterprise file system
shipping that includes all the features of NTFS 5.
-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 13:21:11 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
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:38:28 +0100
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Russ Lyttle wrote:
> Bartek Kostrzewa wrote:
>
>> [deltia]
>>
>>> Why not just squander the extra money on frivolous hardware.
>>>
>>> You could have added a rather nice RAID array to that configuration
>>> to bring the price up if that was really the problem.
>>
>> But what for?! They don't need that kind of machine! That's the whole point
>> I wanted to make, you have to buy too much, so you don't have to put so much
>> money into the state's pockets, and I find this tax system ridiculous, the
>> more money you have to invest, the less taxes you pay... rich people get
>> richer, and poor people have to pay (relatively) very high amounts in taxes.
>>
>
> Most Americans on this group don't remember the time before Regan when
> we had "tax brackets" and had to come up with all kinds of schemes to
> avoid the dreaded 110% marginal rate ($1 in extra income resulted in
> $1.10 in extra taxes.
>
> What you need to learn is that your friend is in business to make money
> and governments are in business to take money. This is what you do to be
> both moral and help him out.
> First and foremost you find out what the budget is. Get enough
> information to make sure that you can meet his needs within budget. DO
> NOT TELL HIM THE RESULTS. If you don't tell him what it will cost, then
> the government can't charge him with "tax avoidance". "Tax Avoidance" is
> the governments way of saying that what he did was legal, but he did it
> to avoid tax and therefore has to pay the tax and penalties. You tell
> him you need more information. Do a Business Activities Survey. That is
> just find other things that could be done to improve his business. Add
> into your submission "additive extras". These are things that will help
> him improve his business but weren't included in the original
> submission. Be sure to bill for your hours. He can select the extras he
> wants. His business gets better. His taxes go down. You make more money.
> And everyone is happy.
> What ever you do don't just spend the money on neat hardware or give
> anyone a hint that you could have done the job cheaper. The government
> has ears everywhere.
Not in Luxembourg, trust me....
>
>
>>>
>>>> As you see, Luxembourg's taxing logic is pretty hard to understand, you
>>>
>> have
>>
>>>> to invest tons of money into your businness, so the state can't take
>>>
>> "extra"
>>
>>>> taxes at the end of the year...
>>>
>>> So? Just spend it in hardware.
>>
>> just like I said... what the heck for?
>>
>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
>>>
>>> That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
>>> |||
>>> / | \
>>
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:22:43 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:a9y86.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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).
So basically you're saying that Open Source offers no advantage for large
projects? This is basically what I've been saying all along.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:24:11 GMT
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> >
> > Sounds like a driver issue, wouldn't you say.
> >
> > Do you want to get into how bad drivers are on Linux?
> >
> > I don't think you do.
> >
> > -Chad
> >
> Well, the new c't just did a comparison between Gigabit network cards.
> They also tested their speed under Linux, linux -> w2k, w2k -> linux and
> w2k -> w2k.
> Guess what, ALL cards performed miserably under w2k compared to linux.
> For example: 3Coms 3C985B-SX was 5 times(!!) faster under linux than under
> w2k (NETIO test).
> ! Card haf NO w2k- drivers but was working good under linux. The fastest
> card under w2k performed still more than 10% worse than under linux.
>
> Well chad, sure sounds like a driver issue, doesn't it?
Big suprise. Amazing how Microsoft always loses in any competition c't hosts.
Yet other magazines, Microsoft wins some, Microsoft loses some.
-Chad
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:41:38 +0100
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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!!!
MediaPlayer does the same.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
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 13:27:38 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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? :-)
To (.):
Let me know when Linux even appears on any major industry benchmarks
or shows itself beating the heavyweights in any of the major enterprise
arenas.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:52:54 +0000
> 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?
>
Erm...I think in fact YOU did the misconfiguring.
I'm afraid I can't help as my sound chip has ben dead for a v.long time
and so I've never had chance to have such a problem.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Benchmark tests - who cares?
Date: 15 Jan 2001 07:47:58 -0600
All the bad benchmark test results in the world couldn't make me dislike my
OS. Basically, Linux users are kind of spoiled, because their OS is so much
better than Windows when it comes to stability, security, and performance on
the specweb.
OK, so I run FreeBSD. But, it is the open source cousin to Linux, so the
same principle applies equally to FreeBSD and Linux. There isn't a benchmark
test result in the world that could make me not love FreeBSD. I think we all
remember a time when Linux wasn't all that great, maybe 5, 6, 7 years ago.
But did that stop people from loving Linux? Hell no!
Basically, I'm wondering if some people in here are "bandwagon" Linux fans.
You know, they like it just because it performs well on benchmarks. If
FreeBSD scored 100 worse than Windows on a webbench result, I would keep on
lovin' my OS! It's because I know that it is an open source product, my
OS would have a tremendous future ahead of it.
All you see references to in here are benchmarks, as if it were the ultimate
trait for judging an OS. But, it was *love* that made open source great ($1
to John Lennon). Open source OSes (FreeBSD and Linux) overtook and conquered
Microsoft because the Linux community was based on love. Micros**t, OTOH,
was based on avarice and hate.
So, I say, the hell with benchmarks! Repeat after me: "I love my OS no
matter how good or bad it performs on a stupid benchmark!" It is then that
you know you are a good advocate, not a bandwagon advocate!
OK, so I admit my post was stupid. But, I just had to react to some of these
people in here who base their love for Linux on benchmark superiority, and
the fact that 2.4.0 is the best kernel ever. Just love Linux for being
Linux. With true OS love, nothing else matters. I love FreeBSD. I'm sure
y'all love Linux in the same manner!
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:53:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mozilla is starting to shape up though - M17 is not bad.
Try Mozilla 0.7, it's even better,
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:48:07 GMT
Ayende, the proof that SWC is in the kernel is not only based on common
sense, it can also be found in Microsoft's own source code: "// Open Kernel
SWC device". See TWC.C in the following source code package:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/api-src/Dell-20001212-TWC.zip .
According to the copyright notices, all of the code was written by Tai-Yi
Huang (tyhuang) of Microsoft Corporation. The fact that SWC runs in
kernelspace is not mentioned on Microsoft's SWC page.
Thomas
> > (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...
>
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20001225-00091.asc
>
> Similar system, running RH7 & TUX 1, 6407 only.
>
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q3/web99-20000710-00057.asc
>
> Similar system, running RH6.2 & TUX 1, 6387.
>
> Both are almost 1000 below IIS.
>
> BTW, please notice that the IIS result:
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001127-00075.asc
>
> Is the only result with 8 CPU of IIS.
>
> TWC 3.0 is listed as the API, search at MS' site result in Time Warner Cable
> as the only thing that is listed as matching.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/iis/swc2.asp
> No mention of swc 3.0 anywhere on the net aside from SPEC's site. (using
> google & hotbot)
>
> I'm not sure how linadvocates reached to the conclustion that it run in the
> kernel.
>
> BTW, anyone can explain me what is the difference between SPECWeb96 &
> SPECWeb99?
>
> I'll also like to know what OS MS is going to release in two months.
> I know that SP2 is likely to be due in Feb, but I thought that there is
> still time until Whistler will pop out.
> Or is it something secret OS that no one knows about?
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
