Linux-Advocacy Digest #485, Volume #31 Mon, 15 Jan 01 16:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!? (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Pete Goodwin)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Pete Goodwin)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Pete Goodwin)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Pete Goodwin)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (mlw)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (sfcybear)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:16:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:57:26 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[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.
I think Flatfish is referring to issues that aren't "automatically
resolved" during installation (in other words, a wizard starts
asking questions), but have to be "manually" edited. Of course,
that means one has to read the README file or comments in the
configuration files or something, I guess.
Oh the horror. Oh the humanity. Oh the extreme sarcasm. :-)
(I for one had to do a little work to set up encrypted passwords
on my Samba client/server. But it wasn't horribly difficult,
and it turns out my Win2k machine doesn't have a big problem
reading my Linux Samba server. I haven't tried mounting
a Win2k share yet, though.)
>
>> 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.
There are some issues regarding printers on Linux, mostly because
a lot of them are merely printing bitmaps generated by Ghostscript,
imposing a CPU load.
I don't know if this is a big problem or not (I don't see it as
such, but then I don't print that often :-) ).
>
>>
>> Tell all the folks running those web pages to shut them down.
>
>why?
Because they're using the wrong server. They should be using
IIS5 with Win2k. :-) (But only if they have very very deep pockets.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 4d:14h:55m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:30:08 -0500
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > J Sloan wrote:
> >
> > > Not at all - X is way overkill for 95% of the users, who
> > > really don't need a network-transparent, client/server
> > > windowing system. A simple local GUI, similar to what's
> > > on a windows pc, would likely suffice.
> >
> > I agree. How many desktop users even need to run X11 apps on a remote
> > server? Most Linux desktop users just run everything on the "local"
> > display, i.e., on the console. It also would simplify things for a
> > desktop environment. Because you (possibly) would have the widgets
> > built-in, it would make programming the API much simpler, and would
> > eliminate all the toolkit-clashing you normally see on unix boxes
> > running X11.
> >
> > No offense, but the only way to get a consistent look and feel on X11 is
> > to have all your apps linked to the same X toolkit. Secondly, you'd
> > have to convince people that this "one true" toolkit is the best to use.
> >
> > My position on X toolkits is that they all pretty much suck in one area
> > or another. FOr example,. Qt is very easy to use, but it requires use
> > of the dreaded "moc" compiler in certain situations. In my experience,
> > Motif has been the easiest to program, but Motif apps have too damn many
> > lines of code. Also, Gtk produces nice apps, but, no offense again, the
> > API looks kinda like a hack.
> >
> > Write one nice non-X11-based GUI system for unix, and give it a super
> > API everyone could agree on. Then, if people like it, it could always
> > be ported to X11 as an API layer.
> >
> > No doubt I'll be blasted into the ionosphere with all the flames I'll
> > get.
> > 8-)
>
> Flames? Its' the first intelligent Linux GUI comment I've heard in a while.
> X is overkill unless you need the remote display capabilities. A smaller,
> local GUI system would be a wonderful thing. It isn't going to make major
> inroads into the desktop market without one, IMO.
how much smaller would it be to make a "local only" GUI?
5%?
probably not even that.
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Sunbelt Software Solutions
--
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: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:35:07 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Frx86.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
> >
> > Well, I thought my point was quite obvious. The computer
> > industry has a long history of different data formats. There
> > have been some standards for data developed over time such as
> > the 8-bit byte and IEEE floating point, but there are still many
> > differenenes. Not taking this into account is very
> > short-sighted.
>
> The PC industry as a whole was short sighted. The IBM PC's original
design
> was highly short sighted, especially when you consider that 68000's were
> available at the time (and had been for several years).
You make it sound as though the PC was the only IBM design back then. That
obviously isn't true, but besides the mainframe lines they also made
workstations geared toward scientific use and had 68000 based designs
available at the time of the PC introduction.
> IBM controlled the PC, and they treated it like a throw away project with
> little to no planning. The PC industry followed IBM's lead.
IBM was the only company with a lot to lose from cheap desktop PC's
taking over traditional mainframe jobs. It was clear from the beginning
that they did not want to build a box capable of doing that. Still, how
long did it take before any other company managed to design a usable
bus? EISA was sort-of usable but not a great improvement and it
wasn't until PCI that things really got better. So with these obvious
problems inherent in the PC, why would a software company try to
trap their customers into staying with it in order to be able to continue
to read their own data files? It wasn't for the cus(\Ser's benefit.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!?
Date: 15 Jan 2001 20:29:01 +0100
In article <93o4du$h36$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My question was *why* this
>is the case. I can't see it.
I don't understand it either... the excuse I got from the attendant in
Princeton was so lame I don't even remember it.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat
Date: 15 Jan 2001 20:32:32 +0100
In article <g5n76.29541$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
>> Very poorly written piece. From a Corporate IT/MS perspective, it talks
>> as if Linux has been _technologically_ playing catch up to W* and is
>> just getting there.
>
>Sounds like my comment "Linux lags behind Windows"
>
>> Linux was beyond that point several years ago.
>
>In certain areas, yes, but in terms of the GUI, it's catching up to Windows.
That's not what the article said... it said Linux was catching up in a
general sense, that is, even as a server compared to NT. At least
that's the impression I got.
Why do people think the Windows GUI is so important to mimic? I hate it
and am glad to do everything in xterms and an emacs window.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:06:17 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> Say, are you trying to telnet in as root?
>
> That would be denied of course, unless you change the defaults.
I just type "telnet pcxxx" and I get "Permission denied.". No username
prompt.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:07:03 +0000
Ketil Z Malde wrote:
> > On the server machine, telnetting to it resulted in "Permission
> > denied".
>
> "Permission denied"? What username? Did you check file permissions,
> in particular on root, home and similar directories? Can you "su" to
> the same user?
telnet pcxxx
...Permission denied.
There's no username prompt. I think this is due to the daemon not actually
running on pcxxx
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:07:39 +0000
pip wrote:
> This is what I asked myself and I have no sensible reasons. Human error
> :-)
> It is a pain in the proverbial.
My theory is it's a bug in Linux Mandrake installer.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:12:05 +0000
Ketil Z Malde wrote:
> I don't think so. The only thing you did to provoke anything like it,
> would be to post in c.o.l.advocacy, instead of a more appropriate
> group - if it's help you want, that is.
It wasn't so much help I wanted but my commentary on things.
> What does that mean - you actually reinstalled everything?
Yep. Three times.
> Did you check kernel messages to see if the driver was loaded? Did
> you check that the network scripts were run, or try to run them
> manually?
ifconfig revealed TCP/IP was correctly configured. I could see lights
flicker on my hub, yet no access to the remote machine.
> > I deliberately installed KDE/GNOME so I could run linuxconf on X. TCP/IP
> > was working but a previously working script for Samba is now broken.
>
> What's the error message?
Oh the script runs fine. Access from a remote machine is denied.
> > Fourth Installation
>
> > The only snag with this setup is the lack of remote access to the PC. I
> > have to access the desktop to do anything. Remote file access is
> > possible, but I can reboot or run the CD burner remotely. I can live
> > with that for now.
>
> All kinds of remote access (telnet, rsh, rlogin, ssh)? What happens?
The fourth installation is Windows Millenium.
> > Linux Mandrake is a very nice package for someone who doesn't want to
> > get into the bowels of UNIX style configuration... but falls apart if
> > you want to do something other than install everything.
>
> I think you - if you wish to administrate systems - need to know how
> things work under the hood. This is very true for Linux, and quite
> true for the varieties of Windows as well.
I don't think this is so true of Windows, even Windows 2000.
It certainly is true of Linux - it would be nice if this wasn't so, but oh
well.
> It is theoretically possible for software and hardware to configure
> itself, but I've yet to see any practical solution that actually
> works.
It's called Windows.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:12:43 +0000
pip wrote:
> There is a big difference between choosing the wrong run-level and
> not having simple tools installed! On some options under mandrake
> it assumes that you don't need to install a ftp server of telnet server
> and these tools are *very* handy when setting up a Linux boxen!
And the options aren't made very clear, I think.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:14:34 +0000
Bob Hauck wrote:
> >I setup exports and I ran linuxconf. Remote system reported "Permission
> >denied", so I checked access to the directories. Everything seemed fine.
>
> What's in /etc/exports? If you use host names, those hosts have to be
> in DNS or /etc/hosts. It might also pay to check that nfsd is running.
/home/shared/kits bigpc(rw)
bigpc was in hosts
bigpc couldn't access NFS - Permission denied.
I don't use DNS - shouldn't need it for a network with just two nodes!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:20:24 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I submitted a bug report to Mandrake.
Any response as yet?
> >Linux is more stable than Windows 98 SE and (probably) Windows Millenium.
>
> Definitely for ME, but Win98SE is perfectly stable for me running my
> digital audio work.
> I admit it is a custom, well chosen system and is not really typical
> of the average consumer system where programs are installed and
> de-installed on a daily basis.
My systems would hang or crash whilst running Netscape. It got pretty
annoying, so I thought I'd try Linux instead. It hardly crashes nowadays
(once!) so it's pretty much what I wanted.
> >Linux can be remotely controlled - I can log in on one machine and do
> >things on the other. Very useful to me. Now that my server is Windows
> >Millenium, I can't do this without writing something myself. Not so
> >useful.
>
> I can do most things from my Win2k server, but in reality I prefer to
> walk upstairs to the other computers, but I can see your point.
Precisely.
> >I can read mail, news. Browsing is a bit silly with Netscape and
> >konqueror.
>
> 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?
I don't read them offline.
> >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)?
I put the CDROM in the drive. I sit down at my desk. In front of my is my
main workstation. The server is nearby but just a little awkward to sit in
front of. It would be much nicer to control it all from one keyboard/screen.
> >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.
How long does it stay up? I'm not asking to flame you, just curious.
> >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.
They're valid concerns as far as I'm concerned.
> 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.
Prices here in the UK are a _lot_ higher than America.
> It's cheap, and it is interesting and someday it WILL be a major
> contender for the desktop.
So you accept that!
> I'm just not certain if I will be alive by the time that happens
> though, I am 40yo BTW.
Ahah... I'm 40 too. I expect it'll be there a lot sooner.
> 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 haven't thrown it away yet.
> I have seen it happen 100 times or more.
Here's one that got away...
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:29:51 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> I think I'll play Pete's part just one time here.
8)
> Why don't we both have lives?
Why do you have a job in NT?
> Yeah,
> W2k scares me too.
I'd have thought your boss would be scared - after all you answered the
door brandishing a gun!
> I see Linux as an operating system for people who know something
> about computers. Since you and I don't know anything about
> computers we will just stay away from Linux and W2k.
This is you playing me?
ROFL
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:34:43 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> > I used linuxconf to activate nfs.
>
> hmm, I haven't used linuxconf that much - doesn't really
> click with me. I like the redhat control panel, or webmin
> better. Personally, I just edit the files by hand, it's quicker
> that way.
Seems to be way Mandrake does things.
> I check whether nfs is a scheduled service by typing
>
> chkconfig --list nfs
>
> If not, I make it official by typing
>
> chkconfig --level 345 nfs on
That's new to me.
> I activate nfs immediately by typing
>
> /etc/rc.d/init.d/nfs start
That one I knew.
> and verify that it's running by typing
>
> rpcinfo -p
or /etc/rc.d/init.d/nfs status
> > It still resulted in "permission denied".
>
> What said "permission denied", and at what point?
>
> starting the service?
No
> attempting to mount the filesystems from a remote host?
Yes
> attempting to write to the filesystems from a remote host?
Didn't even get that far.
> If you think you did select it, run a quick sanity check
> and make sure the telnet package is installed -
>
> For instance -
>
> # rpm -qa | grep telnet
> telnet-server-0.17-7
> telnet-0.17-7
It is on my main machine. Since I've now got Windows ME installed on the
server, I can't tell anymore.
> Be advised that telnet is deprecated for security reasons.
I realise that, but what need of security on a two node network?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:37:10 +0000
Bones wrote:
> Pete, how much difference does the ATA100 controller make?
Since I switched from 2GByte drives on IDE to 30GByte on ATA66, quite a bit
of difference actually! It does seem a faster system, though how much
faster I'm not sure.
This is a 166MHz PC with old style IDE controller. It won't take EIDE or
ATA type drives, too old. That's why I bought an ATA controller. The ATA100
seemed nice enough, so away I went.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:41:59 -0500
Jan Johanson wrote:
[snipped]
You know, this whole benchmark silliness is too much to take. And yes I
said this before, during and after the stupid Mindcraft bit.
If all you need are web boxes to serve static content, load balanced
el-cheapo boxes running Linux or FreeBSD are the best bang/buck you can
get, bar none.
Now, if you are talking about a non-trivial web site, with databases,
application servers, etc. Well, then hey, guess what? You'd best be
studying how to improve and optimize your database and application
servers because that is your bottleneck, and still the use el-cheapo
boxes running Linux or FreeBSD for web service.
Linux/FreeBSD and rack mounted boxes are about $1.5K~$2K per 120 QPS, on
average, for one of my web sites, under load test emulating a user. This
includes very little static content, almost all of it is PHP generated.
No OS, on the same PC hardware, will be substantially different.
(substantially different to me is 20%)
The name of the game in web content is predictable scalibility. The
back-ends will always bite you on the ass. Web service is a commodity
and unimportant in the overall picture of complex site. It is the
application servers, databases, analysis engines, etc. which are what
the architect should focus on.
The side that makes Linux or FreeBSD the clear winner is ssh and UNIX
remote capability. One can do anything remotely to a UNIX box that they
can do sitting in front of it. This is not true with NT/2K without
buying extra software on top of the already too expensive buggy OS.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:41:32 +0000
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> *Boggle*
>
> Why are you selecting 'Development' for a server? There is a 'Server'
> install you know.
Because I want to develop applications? Maybe *gasp* I want to build my own
kernel?
> No wonder you have so many problems. You can't even read the install
> program!
If the install program did what it should do, then I'd have less problems.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:42:59 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> YELLOW FUNNELS IN THE BACK YARD!
Eeeeewwww!
Oh, I see. Flush the genes down the funnels. Silly me! That is what you
meant right? Not, "disembowel youself with that... flat... rusty...
yellow... funnel".
B*>
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:56:25 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So you are not denying anymore that SWC is a subsystem or driver executing in
> the Windows 2000 kernel in kernel-mode, and that almost no (if any) IIS 5.0
> code was executing during the benchmark. This was my point from the beginning
> :-) Your claim is that SWC is caching full static HTTP replies. Then it's in
> blatant violation of HTTP RFC's, IIRC the 'Date:' field for example has to be
> generated for every request. I just digged RFC-2616 up, it says: "Origin
> servers MUST include a Date header field in all responses, except in these
> cases: [... hardware has no clock ...].") So SWC 3.0 either violates the HTTP
> RFC's (and thus Spec rules) in a spectacular way, or it generates HTTP fields
> autonomously (and thus qualifies as a webserver). Pick your favorite.
Microsoft is ALL ABOUT VIOLATING STANDARDS.
--
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: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:54:29 GMT
In article <3a632a16$0$45720$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:13 -0600, 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...
> >
> >
> > The kernel mode Tux server is *optional* and can be removed if it
worries
> you.
>
> It doesn't - that was my point.
>
> >
> > How can I remove NT's kernel mode GUI?
>
> Why bother? Who cares? Besides, run the NT box headless...
What a silly thing to do just to disable the GUI
>
>
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
******************************
