Linux-Advocacy Digest #498, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (John Hasler)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Open Source & security holes (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (John Brock)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:43:13 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:07:16
>Obviously you aren't reading the garbage the people on COLA are posting.
>
>"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> The funny thing is Linux is like math, the more your tinker around with it
>> and solve problems the easier it becomes to configure trouble shoot and
>> deploy applications on.
Actually, Mr. Top-poster, I thought it was pretty obvious he was more
concerned with the way Linux actually works than "the garbage the people
on COLA" are posting. I'm not sure which 'garbage' you mean, but the
only posts I can think of that match that concept would be Chad Myers of
Erik Funkenbusch (and maybe Aaron Kulkis.)
You and Ayende get close, but I still think you're both reformable.
You're just guys with limited data and a pre-disposition. Chad and Erik
(though certainly not Aaron!) are just sock-puppets.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:56:06 GMT
Charlie Ebert writes:
> I've used FreeBSD and I have some comments.
> It's license allows for corporations to steal the code and copyright it
> for their own purposes,...
No it doesn't.
> ...thus not contributing back to the base code.
No free software license requires that.
BTW, much of the software you use every day on Linux is licensed under
terms similar or identical to those used by FreeBSD.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:56:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bones wrote:
Let me do a detailed detail analysis here.
>There seems to be some misunderstanding, or perhaps some spinning about the
>SpecWeb results in this thread...
>
Okay. Let's see if we mis-understood.
>I checked out the figures from all the SpecWeb99 numbers that various
>companies have been submitting and summarized them for all of you here (with
>information relevant to this thread), complete with sleep-inducing
>commentary from yours truly. I took figures from 2000 and the first quarter
>of 2001, trimmed it down to like systems that had ratings for both Windows
>and Linux -based http serving solutions.
>
Okay, follow you so far.
>
>Scaling
>-------
>Apparently Linux had a much easier time making use of additional processors.
>All the Linux boxes that are listed under the SpecWeb99 results seems to get
>a 37-40% boost in power for each additional processor added. The Windows+IIS
>machines don't fair as well, tacking on anywhere from 22-35% more
>performance for each processor added.
>
These figures indicate that Windows suck compared to Linux.
This is true. We are in total agreement here.
>I've compiled these two examples from posted SpecWeb99 benchmarks from this
>past year (I am aware that the two models use 1,2,4 and 2,4,8 processors
>respectively, I am looking at the change with processors, not the total
>rating):
>
>Server # Processors HTTP Software SpecWeb Rating
>------------------- ------------ ------------- --------------
>IBM Netfinity 7600 (1) IIS 5 968
>IBM Netfinity 7600 (2) IIS 5 1182
>IBM Netfinity 7600 (4) IIS 5 1570
>
>IBM Netfinity 8500R (2) Tux 1 2399
>IBM Netfinity 8500R (4) Tux 1 4248
>IBM Netfinity 8500R (8) Tux 1 6407
>
>
These figures indicate that Windows sucks hind tit compared to Linux.
This is true. We are in total agreement here.
>
>Comparison
>----------
>With the exception of the PowerEdge 8450 (more on that later), Linux + Tux
>1.0 easily trounces all over Windows + IIS5 everywhere I could dig up the
>numbers for comparison. Linux is almost twice as fast as Windows with the
>PowerEdge 2400, and slightly more than twice as fast with the 4400.
>
>System # Processors HTTP Software SpecWeb Rating
>------------------- ------------- ------------- --------------
>Dell PE 2400/667 (1) Tux 1 1270
>Dell PE 2400/667 (1) IIS 5 732
>
>Dell PE 4400/800 (2) Tux 1 2200
>Dell PE 4400/800 (2) IIS 5 1060
>
These figures indicate that Windows sucks hind tit compared to Linux.
This is true. We are in total agreement here.
>
>Windows gets two more hard disks than Linux does for the test with the
>PowerEdge 6400: Pagefile on one disk, OS and logs on two disks, and data
>striped across the remaining four disks. Linux uses one drive for the OS and
>logs, and the remainder for data. This performance tweak seems to not have
>much effect, since Linux + Tux 1.0 beats Windows + IIS 5 by a healthy margin
>here too.
>
>System # Processors HTTP Software SpecWeb Rating
>------------------- ------------- ------------- --------------
>Dell PE 6400/700 (4) Tux 1 4200
>Dell PE 6400/700 (4) IIS 5 1598
>
These figures indicate that Windows is a 73 Buick with a valve and
ring problem when compared to Linux.
This is true. We are in total agreement here.
>
>And how about the controversial PowerEdge 8450 system? As was mentioned in
>this thread, IIS had somehow (magically) revved-up its performance to only
>about 2.7% less than that of Tux. The SpecWeb99 numbers are like this:
>
>System # Processors HTTP Software SpecWeb Rating
>------------------- ------------- ------------- --------------
>Dell PE 8450/700 (8) Tux 2 7500
>Dell PE 8450/700 (8) IIS 5 +SWC 3 7300
>
In every survey there is that 1 result out of 8 or 100 which doesn't
reflect the rest of the pool. Something has happened to produce
unreliable results here.
Still, Windows sucks hind tit on this test also when compared to Linux.
>It looks like the tuners felt there was an I/O bottleneck with disk access,
>and the hardware is *not* the same with these two machines. The Linux box
>uses the same five SCSI disks and configuration as I mentioned above. The
>Windows machine uses *NINE* disks: One disk for the OS, two striped and
>containing logs, and the remaining six drives have the data striped across
>them. Eight of those nine are 15K RPM drives, unlike the 10K RPM drives
>Linux is using. Apparently the solution to a Windows performance problem is
>to get more powerful hardware involved (on the server anyway), not make the
>OS more efficient. I am not surprised.
>
Geezus Christ folks. Linux with it's 10K RPM drives took Windows with 15K RPM
drives DOWN!@
Windows REALLY WASTES YOUR HARDWARE!
If you have LOTS OF BUCKS and you enjoy wasting your hardware
and YOUR AN IDIOT then RUN WINDOWS.
>What did surprise me was that comparing these tests gives Windows a handicap
>(you have to read the fine print): For instance, with the 8450, Windows'
>test involved only 35 clients, the Linux box 40. If we make a real rough
>estimate using the figures given, a more realistic set of numbers would be
>6257 for IIS 5 and 7500 to Tux 2.0 (both being pelted by 40 client
>machines), and that doesn't take the differences in storage hardware into
>account.
>
Incredible! Linux just smoked the shit out of Windows.
>
>Sort of like the Mindcraft tests, which had little bearing on reality, these
>SpecWeb tests sacrifice things for performance that no sys admin in his
>right mind would sacrifice. You would never catch me sextupling my chances
>of a catastrophic hardware failure and downtime by spreading one collection
>of data across six disk drives. I'm also fairly certain that I wouldn't use
>Tux or IIS as my httpd of choice either. It looks to me like Dell was
>configuring for the most impressive rating on each model it offered, not to
>directly compare Windows to Linux, as some would like to spin the results.
>
Yeah, that's to be expected. They want extreme hardware performance ratings.
>BTW, I got tired of reading the material, does anyone know if X was running
>on the RedHat server?
>
>
>----
>Bones
So they push both of them. But if your pushing or just using sanely, then
Linux still beats the muff off of Windows.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:06:17 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:30:00
GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Well, I don't plan to second-guess, or even have to double-check, any
>> consumers, no matter how braindead, but I would suspect that they would
>> consider Mandrake at fault. I can't see a reason in the world why they
>> would consider Linux at fault, unless
>> a) they were aware that Mandrake was Linux, which isn't necessary at all
>> b) they weren't aware that the problem doesn't occur in other Linux, but
>> only on Mandrake.
>
>Except the problems found commonly in Mandrake are common (or relitively so)
>in OTHER distro's as well.
Which? Are you trolling, or do you have a *problem*. Not a *fault*.
Not a story about "oh, this didn't work when I did that" or "my program
seg faults when I...." Not a *gripe*, a wish, a "I want it to..."
Are you saying there is a *problem* that is *found commonly*?
What is it?
>It's a LINUX wide problem being so damn hard to
>configure, install software with, and just generally manage.
No. Its a *user* problem. The consumers have to get smarter about what
they want, and what they're really getting, before anyone can make any
god-damn magical genie in a bottle, OK? That "Windows" thing? The
"easy", the "OLE/COM/ActiveN"? That was a *scam*. A fucking illusion,
man. It wasn't really *software*. They never had to make sure it
really worked, or was even very functional; they just had to keep
cranking it out and foisting it on the entirely ignorant market, which
assumed that computers could be magic because the software monopolists
told them it could.
The fact that computers are hard to configure and manage isn't a
*problem*, its just a *fact*. They'll *always* be harder to configure
than not configuring them, so the best approach is to just get started.
Yes, you have a lot to learn.
>Software
>companies ARE working on the problem, but damnit, what's the point in
>releasing version after version of nothing but minor bugfixes (or even major
>security holes) when the UNDERLYING problem still exists? Isn't this what
>you keep lambasting Microsoft for?
No, I lambast them for illegal behavior; not really the same thing at
all, eh?
>> No, its an application barrier. That's going away, very soon. The
>> market itself will probably have it completely dismantled by next year.
>
>Really? Last I checked, Adobe still owned the rights to Photoshop. They
>COULD port Photoshop to the Linux/UNIX platform (and send The GIMP into The
>TOILET) in a heartbeat. But they don't want to. Hmm, it is that little
>liscense snafu involving opening up the source code to do so?
No, Kyle. You got caught on that in an earlier post, after you wrote
this. There is no requirement whatsoever to GPL software in order to
port it to Linux. They don't port it now because of a combination of
contractual entanglements with Microsoft, I must suppose (other vendors
are known to) or the simple fact that there's not much of a market yet,
since there's still an illegal monopoly.
>> No, everybody doing 'design' did a typical job (some great, some good,
>> some mediocre), what matters to the end result is that Microsoft has
>> been breaking the law for more than ten years, at least, and that is the
>> *ONLY* reason, so far as anyone can tell or know, that the application
>> barrier exists in support of a monopoly. It doesn't have squat to do
>> with the applications themselves. (Natural market forces, I think,
>> would simply synchronize the OS and apps markets, so you'd use the OS
>> that was best for the kind of apps you most needed, though there's
>> reason to believe that wouldn't last long, since Linux can probably
>> replace all the various OSes without sacrificing enough to make it
>> inefficient, either economically or technically.)
>
>Except that what no Linux programmer seems to be willing to admit is the
>fact that Linux, it's various interfaces and it's programs all have hideous
>UI's, and only reproduce a fraction of what their better looking, and more
>functional Windows counterparts do.
UIs are what programmers make of them, and hideous is in the eye of the
beholder. No, its not really important that a computer operating system
or platform or application have "eye candy" smooth graphics, despite
your and the sock puppet's claim to the contrary.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:07:35 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:02:35
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > Well, I don't plan to second-guess, or even have to double-check, any
>> > consumers, no matter how braindead, but I would suspect that they would
>> > consider Mandrake at fault. I can't see a reason in the world why they
>> > would consider Linux at fault, unless
>> > a) they were aware that Mandrake was Linux, which isn't necessary at all
>> > b) they weren't aware that the problem doesn't occur in other Linux, but
>> > only on Mandrake.
>>
>> Except the problems found commonly in Mandrake are common (or relitively so)
>> in OTHER distro's as well. It's a LINUX wide problem being so damn hard to
>> configure, install software with, and just generally manage. Software
>> Really? Last I checked, Adobe still owned the rights to Photoshop. They
>> COULD port Photoshop to the Linux/UNIX platform (and send The GIMP into The
>> TOILET) in a heartbeat. But they don't want to. Hmm, it is that little
>> liscense snafu involving opening up the source code to do so?
>>
>
>Once again you show your total ignorance of Linux and Open
>Source.
And once again, you've failed to enlighten anybody. Thanks for nothing,
I must say, because I can't logically say "thanks for less than
nothing", as there's really no reason I'd be thankful for that, eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Open Source & security holes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:11:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bones wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> In 2000 over 100 security holes were discovered in Microsoft SW. IIS
>> has more than anything else. Would you stake your companies business on
>> such a flawed piece of SW?
>
>Well, no.
>
>> Don't worry, they are now going to include it in the kernel to try and
>> keep up with Linux. :-)
>
>I highly disapprove of this behavior with Linux, and I hope MS does not
>follow suit, because then there will lots of other un-original thinkers
>following suit. To me, this is a huge security problem waiting to happen.
>
>
>----
>Bones
Just out of curiosity, why?
Can't security with this measure be tested the same
as other issues reguarding Kernel Security are?
Is the mere presence of a Kernel based web server
scarry when compared to all the other IP related
issues the Kernel must be secure in using?
It's just another thing to test.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:15:01 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:10:48
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> History shows just the inverse has occurred, in fact. Windows is far
>> and away more buggy, with more 'gotchas', and has been that way for more
>> than a decade, and yet Bill Gates' Microsoft is still around. Still,
>> Microsoft has never been in business, so obviously, your prediction is
>> true, as well. It takes monopolization to make the whole world use such
>> a sorry, pathetic, pile of crap on a regular basis. Had Gates tried to
>> sell it as a competitive product, he would have been out of business
>> years ago.
>
>Have you even used Windows NT past service pack 3?
I've been using NT SP4 as my personal laptop/desktop for more than a
year, now.
>Or do you just listen to
>what your friends on COLA tell you about Windows, and belive it.
I used Win95 before that (I refused to go to Win98; one of the reasons I
got NT) since it came out, and before that Win3.11 (WfW), Win3.1,
Win3.0, and Win386/286, as well. I saw Win 1.0 briefly on a mate's
computer in Hawaii when I was in the service, but that was before I
really got into PCs professionally. I bought a C64 the next year, IIRC.
>Windows NT
>4 has few stability problems (short of an incompetent administrator) past
>service pack 4, service packs 5, 6, and 6A are securtiy patches for various
>Windows services.
Sorry, you're wrong. Worse yet, you're insulting the competency of
millions of computer administrators worldwide. NT sucks; the last two
service packs are considered unusable by many people. The earlier SPs
were necessary, of course, but that just shows how much NT sucks. Its
better in some ways (stability certainly being a primary one) than
WinDOS (worse in others because its not entirely interoperable or
compatible). But it does suck just about as much as most other monopoly
crapware. Which is to say no matter how little it sucks, its kind of
hard to understand how much it sucks, and its overpriced to boot.
>> >Linux is full of bugs and anyone who trusts their system to a
>> >collection of 1-x versions of programs with no proven track record is
>> >out of their minds.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I'm just not capable of generating the level and type of
>> sarcasm which that statement demands in response. Please repost it
>> again, and give someone else a shot; thanks.
>
>Linux is full of bugs and anyone who trusts their system to a
>collection of 1-x versions of programs with no proven track record is
>out of their minds.
No, that wasn't it. Maybe you should let someone else take a shot.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 16 Jan 2001 00:20:33 -0500
In article <3a63b77a$11$fuzhry$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <93u3bg$l4b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/15/2001
> at 12:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) said:
>>I didn't change the meaning by adding "any", I clarified a slightly
>>ambiguous statement.
>You didn't "clarify" it by adding the word "any"; you simply created a
>straw dummy by totally changing the meaning. You claim later on that
>you believe that the sentence can be read two different ways, so what
>you did was to chose (the wrong) one of those ways and then attempt to
>attribute it to me.
>
>Had you been interested in clarifying my statement, you would have
>asked whether I meant "some" or "any". Instead, you knowingly
>misrepresented my position. Saying "I knew perfectly well what you
>meant; I was just ribbing you." is an admission that your argument was
>specious, not an excuse.
>>when I'm clearly right
>Claiming to be right doesn't make you right. Especially when you've
>already admitted to prevarication.
As seems to be your habit, you have once again deleted almost
everything I wrote without acknowledging or responding to any of
my arguments. That's it, I'm out of here.
--
John Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:22:44 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:18:54
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>Chad Myers wrote:
>>>
>> [ a lot of crap]
>>>
>>> -Chad
>>
>>Chad Myers is inane. Why do you bother
>>conversing with this moron?
>>
>>Do yourself a favor... relax... skip his posts.
>>
>>Chris (much happier nowadays)
>>
>>--
>>Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
>
>
>I totally agree. With comments about Datacenter whipping
>a Linux clusters ass and Datacenter beating such systems
>like the 390 series, Chad clearly has a grape fruit sized
>braintumor.
LOL! Well said.
>I think he's probably under 22 and he's pissed as Linux
>won't play his kind of video game.
>
>He also read alot of magazines.
No, he's a sock-puppet. He gets briefed on this stuff straight from One
Microsoft Way. In more naive times (a couple months ago, before I got
here), he'd have been called (and was) an "astroturfer", and accused of
getting a salary from Microsoft. But Microsoft doesn't work that way.
The 'astroturfers' like Chad and Erik work for 'startups' that cultivate
the field, so to speak, seeking opportunities to be bought out by
Microsoft, and probably hopelessly entangled with them, all certified
and licensed and development agreemented, NDAs a foot thick and, like I
said, regular briefings from One Microsoft Way.
Sock puppets. Professional viral ignorance.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:23:22 GMT
Said J Sloan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:29:30 GMT;
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> I don't really consider Mindcraft or ZDNet major industry benchmarks,
>> necessarily. While relevant, TPC and similar industry benchmarks
>> are more reliable and standards based.
>>
>> c't is just FUD all around no matter what they're comparing.
>
>Spoken like a loyal wintroll -
>
>c't is one of the few magazines that don't worship ms.
>
>c't is excellent and technically accurate - they do tend to tell
>it like it is, and let the chips fall where they may.
>
>Perhaps chad didn't realize the magazine is in German,
>and that's why none of it makes sense to him?
ROTFLMAO!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:27:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>Such as Web servers and file servers?
How about making movies like Titanic.
He still denies Linux was involved in any movie making.
Linux makes a really damn good reliable desktop also.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:30:05 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:49:43 -0500, Gary Hallock
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>So? What you still seem to fail to realize is that you, someone
>>who hates Linux and spreads lots of FUD, managed to unwittingly
>>provide evidence to contradict Kyle's assertion that Linux has
>>no quality software. I just find it rather funny that you would
>>be the one to do this.
>
>
>Well you should know by now Gary that my comments rarely apply to the
>server side of Linux because I don't deal in that area.
>
>DB2 is a fine database, and probably the best of breed in that area,
>but that reputation was defined running on other operating systems,
>not Linux.
>
>The jury is still out on DB2 running under Linux, not because of
>Linux, but because it is just too new.
>
>Time will tell.
The market will tell, once all the Windows hoopla is out of the way.
The jury is still out on just about every other major technical
development, save a few, in the last ten or twenty years, because of the
illegal domination of the PC market by Microsoft.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:31:37 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
I agree.
>
> 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.
Very true.
>
> 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.
No brainer!
>
> 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.
Yes!
>
> 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.
Well said!
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:38:51 -0000
On 16 Jan 2001 01:40:46 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: We have a lot of those in Detroit....major thoroughfares are turned
>: into boulevards...and to make a left-turn ONTO one of them, you have
>: to do a right, and then do a U-turn through the median.
>
>
>According to the folks on misc.transport.roads, that is called a
>"Michigan Left," and is somewhat different than a jughandle, although
>both serve a similar purpose.
>
>
>: Actually, it does keep the throughput on the main roads quite high.
>
>
>That's the purpose.
>
>Wish we had them here in the Cleveland area, which has a fourth of
U-Turns are generally illegal in Ohio, aren't they?
>metro Detroit's population and damn near 100% of its traffic mess,
>especially in the suburbs.
OTOH, the ability to make a right & then a U-Turn is quite
often less harrowing than needing to make a rather extreme
left. I'll gladly tolerate those 'michigan lefts'.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
