Linux-Advocacy Digest #504, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 08:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Shane Phelps)
Re: Help Me! The beast is taking over!!!!! ("Martigan")
Re: Windows 2000 (Karel Jansens)
Re: Definition: Desktop, Workstation, Server. (mlw)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: More Linux woes (mlw)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Tom Wilson")
Re: More Linux woes (mlw)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 (Matthias Warkus)
Re: The Linux Show! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Stephen Cornell)
Re: More Linux woes ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The Server Saga (Ketil Z Malde)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:30:50 +1100
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9418d5$aun$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Not all results are RAID 0 based, I have found a RAID 1 based Linux
> SpecWeb99
> > result:
> > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001127-00077.html
> .
> > It says: "8 disk software RAID1 mirror for fileset", and it's the fastest
> 2
> > CPU result. Sounds redundant enough to me.
> >
> > Thomas
>
> Its' nice to see one that has a closer-to-real-world configuration.
>
> I'm curious to see how RAID Level 5 fares since I'm partial to the
> configuration for the protection it offers. I'm willing to sacrifice some
> speed to achieve maximum reliability.
>
> <snippage>
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Sunbelt Software Solutions
RAID 0+1 (striping + mirroring) should give the best performance + security,
but obviously at a price.RAID 5 can be a real hassle, especially if a disk
fails and you hot-swap a spare in (takes forever to sync)
As a general rule, you use RAID 5 for the less highly loaded filesystems
and RAID 0 for the high traffic ones.
With the current price of disk there's not all that much downside to
RAID 0
any more. It was a different matter 5 or 10 years ago :-(
------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help Me! The beast is taking over!!!!!
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:53:12 GMT
"Graham Sumner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a63fd58$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Martigan wrote in message ...
> >
> > Well after I get my modem stuff done, I guess I'll just have to
through
> >away my Windose (dose of sh*T) and start programming for g++!
> >
>
>
> All you need now is a grammar checker.
>
> Graham Sumner
>
No, cuz dat wont be helpn' too mutch!
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:40:16 -0100
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karel Jansens wrote:
[snip]
>>Oh, I don't know. I had a 386sx with a whopping 6 megs and a craayzy 40
>>meg - Yes, folks, that 40 as in four-oh! - hard disk. It could have run
>>Excel.
>>
>>It didn't. I preferred Quattro Pro for DOS. Call me stubborn. Back then
>>it was 123 or Quattro anyway; if you mentioned Excel to serious number
>>crunchers, they'd say: "What?" and susequently refuse to buy you beer
>>anymore.
>>
>>Ahhh, those were the days...
>>
>
>123 is still faster.
>
Heretic!
Apostate!!
Worshipper of Satan!!!
Oh... <G>, obviously.
[snip]
>>
>>As a sidenote, I believe both Excel and Word (1) entered the Windows
>>scene at about the same time: the same magazine had a review of Word as
>>well.
>>
>
>Word was ahead of Excel by a year or more.
>
I've never bothered to follow the (d)evolution of Word. In fact, the only
version I have is Word 2, which came on a ROM card with my Omnibook 425. It
also had Excel 4 and Windows 3.1. (weirdly enough, Windows 3.1 on XIP ROM does
not seem to be any faster than on a spinning disk based machine - go figure)
[snip]
>>I bought my copy of Win 3.1 retail, without any bundling going on. It
>>was bloody cheap too. And I got a T-shirt. Pity it had "Microsoft"
>>written on it.
>>
>
>I remembered that. The 80's was the time to be a Microsoft fan.
>
Ahem. I happened to be a DR-DOS and Geoworks fan. I would have been a DesqView
fan if I could have afforded the hardware.
>
>>I still have that copy. It was the one that refused to work with a
>>retail version of DR-DOS. It is also the one Erik Funkenbusch insists
>>doesn't exist.
>>
>
>
>Well what do you expect from a man who claims Linux doesn't scale
>well. How many god damn super computer clusters do they have
>to build with Linux before EF comes to his senses?
>
>
This was in a debate about Microsoft deliberately sabotaging DR-DOS' ability to
run Windows 3.1. Erik claimed they only put a warning message in Wincode, but I
have retail copies of both DR-DOS and Windows 3.1 that prove that Windows 3.1
refused to load on top of DR-DOS unless a - trivial - patch was applied. I even
kept the patch disk.
They don't exist, claims Erik. I volunteered to mail them to him, provided he
paid the cost. Haven't heard anything about it since...
[snip]
>
>
>The romance is dead.
>
Romance? More like a S/M hardcore porn flick...
>Windows is ancient history as far as I'm concerned.
>
True, but...
>Anybody still running it is a goof.
.. the Omnibook won't run Linux. (I keep it because it has a 10+ hours battery
life and doesn't make a single sound (*)when running)
Regards,
Karel Jansens
(*) I really mean nothing. This machine runs off a 40 meg flash card. You have
to look at the screen to see if it's on. Booting into DOS and firing up
WordPerfect 6.0 actually makes it quite snappy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition: Desktop, Workstation, Server.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:21:28 -0500
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "David Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9414eo$h4a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el mensaje
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I don't know about you, but seeing "desktop" used interchangeably with
> > > "Workstation" seems a bit extreme. Perhaps I am all wrong, but here are
> > > definitions I usually associate with the terms.
> > >
> > > Server: A system and/or OS optimized or designed to provide optimal
> > > performance, at the expense of the user interface, for service level
> > > applications like file servers, SQL database servers, web (HTTP)
> server,
> > > FTP, etc. Low level performance and stability are the key measures of
> > > quality.
> > >
> > > Desktop: A system and/or OS optimized or designed to provide optimal
> > > user interface performance and simplicity, at the possible expense of
> > > stability and low level performance.
> > >
> > > Workstation: A system which weighs the advantages of both desktop and
> > > server and provides a reasonable compromise between the two. Stability
> > > and low level performance are very important, but usability is also
> > > important.
> >
> > I think that the terms server and workstation are not in the same
> level
> > that desktop is. I mean, a desktop can be attached to both of them. For
> > me a workstation is a computer you use to achieve a job, be it reading
> > mail be it doing scientific calculations, so it depends on the task you
> are
> > doing, if you want/need a desktop or not. I dobasically agree in your
> > server definition.
>
> I always considered a workstation to be a desktop tied to a server or
> otherwise participating in a network.
>
> Hmmm, anyone up for a silly semantics war ? :)
I hope it doesn't become a "war," but it is interesting to hear that
there is really no distinction in the marketplace between "desktop" and
"workstation"
As per my definitions, there is a need for a "workstation" class and
there is a need for a "desktop" class. The two need not be the same,
probably shouldn't be.
What would be a good nomenclature to use?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:24:30 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What the heck is wrong with trying alternative windowing/graphics
> systems on Linux other than X11?
I don't know if it's anything wrong with it, but I remain unconvinced
there's anything beneficial either. Specifically, I don't think using
SVGAlib or fbdev (which, btw, are there for the picking) is going to
be measurably faster than using X.
Does anybody have any benchmarks that indicate that alternatives to X
is faster? And in particular, that isn't fixable by extending X?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:30:56 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >>Like IBM, for instance?
> > >
> > >IBM runs NT and OS/2 in their hardware support centers.
> > >They run VM legacy applications along with Windows at the call center
> >
> > ...they just sold Linux running on an S/390 to a scandinavian
> > telecomm provider...
>
> That poor telecom company...
>
> > They ported db2 to linux and linux to the AS/400 and S/390,
> > so someone at IBM must think well of it...
> >
> > ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
>
> This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
There is a HUGE difference between NSA and NASA.
At NASA, however, the polar lander problem was due to one group using
metric system and another using english. Nothing to do with operating
systems.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:32:41 GMT
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Except for one small problem, you call everyone who can't recompile their
> Kernel five minutes after booting the damn OS an idiot. And you guys are
> the first place where newbies turn for help.
> TRANSLATION= You all suck at tech support, and have the gall to call the
> people you've been insulting for years idiots.
Oh? I interpreted your paragraph as "I get flamed for tons of
malicious whining in an advocacy group, therefore newbies won't get
any help from the net".
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:38:25 GMT
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9418d5$aun$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Not all results are RAID 0 based, I have found a RAID 1 based Linux
> > SpecWeb99
> > > result:
> > >
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001127-00077.html
> > .
> > > It says: "8 disk software RAID1 mirror for fileset", and it's the
fastest
> > 2
> > > CPU result. Sounds redundant enough to me.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> >
> > Its' nice to see one that has a closer-to-real-world configuration.
> >
> > I'm curious to see how RAID Level 5 fares since I'm partial to the
> > configuration for the protection it offers. I'm willing to sacrifice
some
> > speed to achieve maximum reliability.
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> > --
> > Tom Wilson
> > Sunbelt Software Solutions
>
>
> RAID 0+1 (striping + mirroring) should give the best performance +
security,
> but obviously at a price.RAID 5 can be a real hassle, especially if a disk
> fails and you hot-swap a spare in (takes forever to sync)
> As a general rule, you use RAID 5 for the less highly loaded filesystems
> and RAID 0 for the high traffic ones.
> With the current price of disk there's not all that much downside to
> RAID 0
> any more. It was a different matter 5 or 10 years ago :-(
It sure was.. <g>
I was sold on RAID-5 for one reason alone. For grins and giggles I popped a
drive out right in the middle of an NT 4.0 Server installation and popped it
back in after it was done. No problems at all! The thing restripped itself
without so much as a hiccup from the OS. I was impressed!
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:44:54 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> The users problem still persists. There IS a cable present, and FUNCTIONAL.
>
> Linux is not transfering audio through it.
>
> Put it togather genius.
Yes, however the user chose to configure this system caused this
problem. My system does not do this, nor do others on this group. It is
not a Linux problem, it is an application issue.
If you run "cdplay" to start the cdplayer playing, then adjust the sound
using the very nice graphical mixer program it will work fine.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:43:50 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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.
The old disks are bound to be really slow compared to the new one, but
I doubt even the new one is anywhere near saturating ATA66. In
particular, multiple devices on a channel is devastating to
performance. (I know, I had a RAID-striped system that ended up with
both disks on the same channel - ugh. It too replaced by a nice, huge
IBM disk).
> The ATA100 seemed nice enough, so away I went.
Sure, no reason not to!
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:02:58 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:24:11 GMT...
...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
<sarcasm>
Yeah. This is probably because c't is extremely biased.
</sarcasm>
After all, it's about the best-selling German semiprofessional
computer magazine and thus caters to a readership that consists mainly
of Windows users.
mawa
--
Echtnichttollfinder!
Sitzplatzerkämpfer!
Neuwagenschoner!
Leiserülpser!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:05:55 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:41:55 GMT...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[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.
Care to explain whom you mean with "we" and why this is supposed to be
"our" own film?
mawa
--
We handle four billion calls a year, for everyone from presidents and
kings to the scum of the earth. So your call doesn't go through once
in a while, or you get billed for a call or two you didn't make. We
don't care. We don't have to, we're the phone company. -- Lily Tomlin
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 16 Jan 2001 12:58:01 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The fact remains that the applications average Joe wants to use are of
> a much higher quality than similar applications under Linux and THAT
> is the major reason for the lack of Linux on the desktop.
Its a chicken-and-egg situation: Linux can't become a mainstream
desktop OS until there Joe User's favourite software is available for
it, while software companies are wary of investing money in developing
software for a small user base. This is exacerbated by the fact that
many Linux users expect to pay less for software than Unix or MS
users. Observe Adobe decision not to produce Framemaker for Linux, for
instance.
>
> StarOffice is a perfect example. Do you see it replacing Office? I
> don't. Yet StarOffice is free and considering the expense of MS
> licensing could result in quite a bit of cost savings for larger
> companies, yet I don't see StarOffice taking over desktop's. Why is
> that?
There are two overwhelming reasons why (almost) everyone uses MS
Office: (i) they need to exchange documents with other people using MS
office (ii) they don't know that there is an alternative (*).
Clearly, both of these reasons are self-perpetuating, and rely on MS
Office's preexisting near-monopoly rather than on its technical
merits. Do you really think that companies regularly upgrade their MS
Office installation because they need the extra stability/features,
rather than because they need to stay compatible with the rest of the
world?
I would agree that MS office is a better product than Staroffice, as
you would expect given the resources MS has available for its
development (though I don't think that the degree to which it is
better reflects the scale of the revenue it has generated for MS).
Nevertheless, Staroffice has more than enough features to satisfy the
vast majority of users, and in spite of its bloat and clumsy design it
should be good enough for almost all purposes - I've used it for
creating posters, letters, and online presentations. Unfortunately, it
fails to render correctly many complex MS Office documents.
It makes no economic sense for most companies to put SO on their
desktops, knowing that, each time a user is sent a MS Office document,
they will waste an hour trying to find a way of reading that document
as the author intended.
Ironically, the way that MS established itself as the market leader on
the desktop is by producing an operating system that was good enough
for most users while being cheaper than the (superior) alternatives.
It's well documented that MS's tactic for maintaining its market
position is by `embracing and extending' foreign technologies, so that
at each step the most economically viable alternative for each user is
to stay within the MS fold. It's a *locally* stable strategy (in the
game-theoretic sense). This doesn't mean that what results is the
best *global* alternative for customers. Given a big enough
perturbation in the market, and technologies such as GPL Software that
MS cannot subvert, the position could change in the not-so-distant
future.
(*) I have yet to meet anyone else working in Ecology who knows that
there is an alternative to MS Powerpoint for using a computer to give
a presentation. At conferences and invited talks, one is often told
that there is a computer available for giving an inline presentation -
it never occurs to them to specify what software is installed.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:03:08 GMT
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GKR86.79671$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >>Like IBM, for instance?
> > >
> > >IBM runs NT and OS/2 in their hardware support centers.
> > >They run VM legacy applications along with Windows at the call center
> >
> > ...they just sold Linux running on an S/390 to a scandinavian
> > telecomm provider...
>
> That poor telecom company...
>
> > They ported db2 to linux and linux to the AS/400 and S/390,
> > so someone at IBM must think well of it...
> >
> > ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
>
> This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Were they afraid of the lander pissing off Martian Embassy officials? A
Threat of Martian terrorist reprisals, maybe?
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:08:25 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> telnet pcxxx
> ...Permission denied.
> There's no username prompt. I think this is due to the daemon not actually
> running on pcxxx
*I* think it should give you a "connection refused" message.
You did check the permissions on /usr/bin/telnet (or wherever it
resides, try "which telnet"), didn't you?
If that seems okay (i.e. executable and all) try running it without
specifying any hostname. Does that work?
You could also see what the process does, running it with strace:
strace -e trace=file telnet pcxxx
be prepared for a bit of output (or redirect with -o out.file)
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
