Linux-Advocacy Digest #533, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Edward Rosten)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (Edward Rosten)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (.)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (.)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:10:11 +0000
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > the_blur wrote:
>
> >> Hmmm...is there any text-based version of photoshop/illustrator/quark.
> >> (you realize how foolish the above seems right?)
>
> > And airplanes don't work well underwater...nor is scuba-diving gear
> > good for sky diving.
>
> > Do you have a fucking point?
>
> Probably not, except for the fact that he doesn't seem to know that there's
> an image manipulation program available for GGI in the works. So yes, to
> some extent, you could be sitting at the console, and fire up this console
> graphics app that operates on images similar to photoshop.
And also GIMP. Since there is a port of GTK to SVGALib (or equivalent),
linking GIMP against them would proudce another console one. I don't
know how well that port is progressing, though.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:16:14 -0600
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> is that we really don't care whether or not Linux supports all their
> shiny new hardware with X,Y, and Z features or that their favorite
> application 'foo' is not available for Linux. It's not that we're not
> willing to help people that ask for it, but we also don't care when a
> Windows user comes in here and says "Linux sux because it doesn't do
> blah, blah, blah" or "Linux blows because there isn't a port of
> 'insert random Windows application here'".
I think your logic is flawed. If you didn't care, you wouldn't answer.
This very post is a categorical denial of caring, which of course indicates
that you do in fact care.
If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't care enough to post a denial
unsolicited.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:22:37 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Milton wrote:
>
> It is pathetic on so many levels:
>
> (1) Win2K can't compare for stability to any of its server competition.
> (2) NT, despite Microsoft's claims, sucked as bad as we said it did.
> (3) Microsoft is "proud" of these numbers, which tells you they have no
> idea of what an operating system should be.
No, it means that MS is being realistic. Linux fails too, and I'd bet it's
MTTF is about the same as Win2k's, that is if you'd bother to be realistic.
Claiming that it's mean (remember, that's average, not extreme) is
indefinate is a flat out lie.
So, if it's not indefinite, what is Linux's MTTF?
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:19:23 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
What are the winvocates going to say? Micros~1 have now said that 9x and
NT are poor (despite opperste claims from the winvocates).
Their study also shows that Win2K is poor too, since on average it stays
up for only 17 weeks (assuming its on 24 hrs per day). That's bad. Linux
could do better than that years ago.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:20:28 +0000
mlw wrote:
>
> Milton wrote:
>
> It is pathetic on so many levels:
>
> (1) Win2K can't compare for stability to any of its server competition.
> (2) NT, despite Microsoft's claims, sucked as bad as we said it did.
> (3) Microsoft is "proud" of these numbers, which tells you they have no
> idea of what an operating system should be.
How can they be proud of a server which stays up for 17 weeks?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:34:28 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
>
> Did I read this correctly?
>
> Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
> NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
> Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
>
> Is TheRegister.co.uk kidding? NO! Go to the source page:
>
> http://www.nstl.com/html/windows_2000_reliability.html
>
> Talk about spin doctoring, read this:
>
> "From the above results, we conclude that in production environments,
> the
> average system uptime between failures of Windows 2000 Professional
> is 13
> times more than that of Windows 98 and 3 times more than that of
> Windows NT
> Workstation 4.0. With a mean time to failure of over 72 weeks,
> Windows 2000
> Professional is significantly more reliable than Windows 98 and
> Windows NT
> Workstation 4.0."
>
> BTW That 72 weeks assumes you turn off the computer when you go home,
> and only work 40 hours a week. Bogus. It is really only about 18 weeks
> of constant uptime (closer to 17).
The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average desktop *IS*
shutdown at night.
> Well, there you have it, plain and simple. A study, funded by Microsoft,
> that proves that while 2K is better than NT, it still sucks.
The way they count failure is "unplanned reboot". Also note that they used
beta versions of 2000 for the study (they also used the released version,
but beta's were also used).
The interesting thing about the study is that the number of hours monitored
for NT were a little over 1/3 of the number of hours monitored for 2000, and
the number of hours monitored for 98 were a little more than 20% of those of
2000.
> Just so people know, MTTF is the "mean time to failure" which means that
> given any Win2K system, there is a good chance it will crash within 120
> days, and that NT will crash within 38 days, and Win98 will crash within
> 9 days. There is also a likelihood that it will be much sooner.
or much longer.
> There is nothing more to be said. The MS-Zealots claim that their NT/2K
> systems have longer uptimes, but they are either being dishonest or they
> are not the norm. Microsoft has funded this study and used the results
> in an advertisement campaign.
And what's the MTTF of Linux? Empirical studies, not anectdotes about
single systems.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:35:07 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:03:32 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:zX896.2827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:KZY86.1680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:OZP86.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> To put it in a more rational light, there are many compelling reasons for
>> chosing OSS over CSS. And those have been discussed, shouted, filibustered,
>> grunted, flamed, and what-not ad-infinitum. IMO, CSS's only advantage is
>> stricter control and less deviation from a set standard. The fewer cooks at
>> the pot thing. Again, IMO, that alone isn't enough to justify it.
>> Particularly when it comes to the CSS OS we oft discuss around here.
>
>OTOH, there's no compelling reason for OSS. The stated advantages are oft
>never realized (peer review, greater security, better design, etc).
>Particularly when it comes to the OSS OS we oft discuss around here.
...except when it comes to commodity supercomputing in
academia and the oil industry... <snicker>
[deletia]
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 17 Jan 2001 18:38:58 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> is that we really don't care whether or not Linux supports all their
>> shiny new hardware with X,Y, and Z features or that their favorite
>> application 'foo' is not available for Linux. It's not that we're not
>> willing to help people that ask for it, but we also don't care when a
>> Windows user comes in here and says "Linux sux because it doesn't do
>> blah, blah, blah" or "Linux blows because there isn't a port of
>> 'insert random Windows application here'".
> I think your logic is flawed. If you didn't care, you wouldn't answer.
Take a logic course, brainiac. This is non sequitur, requiring proof.
> This very post is a categorical denial of caring, which of course indicates
> that you do in fact care.
Another non sequitur, requiring *catagorical* proof.
> If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't care enough to post a denial
> unsolicited.
Another non sequitur. Maybe they should teach linear aristolian form
in mcse classes.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:41:32 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:08:17 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:07:13 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:9429n6$11rm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> : You certainly mean "Linux replace Windows" - windows is already here,
>it's
>> >> : entrenched. The new kid on the block is Linux, [...snip]
>> >>
>> >> Not for servers. It was quite clear he was talking about servers.
>> >> For servers, Windows is more of a newcomer than Linux (although I
>> >> suppose Linux is actually younger, but it gains a lot of
>> >> "entrenchment" for free by being a UNIX clone.).
>> >
>> >Um, you are incorrect. Windows NT and 2000 have a far larger share
>> >in the server market than Linux.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you should check your facts.
>>
>> 24% versus 34% is hardly "far larger".
>>
>> Infact, Linux is Microsoft's leading competitor by volume.
>
>URL?
Don't be coy.
You know damn well that when the IDC numbers come out at the
beginning of the year that they are EVERYWHERE.
You could even mind dejanews from last year for the information.
Although, those numbers will be recapped by all the computing
media outlets soon enough anyways.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: 17 Jan 2001 18:43:30 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Milton wrote:
>>
>> It is pathetic on so many levels:
>>
>> (1) Win2K can't compare for stability to any of its server competition.
>> (2) NT, despite Microsoft's claims, sucked as bad as we said it did.
>> (3) Microsoft is "proud" of these numbers, which tells you they have no
>> idea of what an operating system should be.
> No, it means that MS is being realistic. Linux fails too, and I'd bet it's
> MTTF is about the same as Win2k's,
You "bet", do you? Well thats certianly something to base a belief on, isnt
it.
Here is a linux machine thats been running DHCPD for 22,000 nodes and acting
as a DNS server for the same:
12:29pm up 334 day(s), 19 min(s), 1 user, load average: 1.30, 1.45, 1.53
This is simply not something that W2K is capable of. Period.
> that is if you'd bother to be realistic.
> Claiming that it's mean (remember, that's average, not extreme) is
> indefinate is a flat out lie.
Oh, it is, is it? Can you show some proof of this?
Really erik, you are (I think) more intelligent than this. You understand
that in many ways, linux is superior to windows of any kind, and you understand
that this is one of them. Why are you arguing?
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:41:30 -0600
Karel Jansens wrote:
> To use the words of the immortal Simpson B.: "I didn't do it!"
>
> In any case, I don't think it changes the point I made.
When you read something by Borland on it, the safest assumption is that Borland is
saying what Borland's lawyers say they can say.
I know when the story hit Slashdot some people were saying that Borland "rudely"
refused to talk to the people who brought the backdoor to their attention. My
immediate assumption was that it wasn't a matter of rudeness, but rather of
corporate lawyers trying to slam the door on lawsuits. That's the way things work
in the Good Ol' USA.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:37:48 -0600
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> The problem is not about the backdoor behind found by OS, it's that it too
> *so* long to find such an obvious backdoor.
How obvious is it? Have you seen the code? Do you have any idea how many
lines of code are in the application? Do you know how many people have been
working on it?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:45:07 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:49:22 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:03:22 GMT, Tom Wilson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:uU296.179774$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Oh for the love of God (not Bill Gates), don't do that!!!
>> >>
>> >> Instead of "Om... om... om..." do you think "Bill Gatessss... Bill
>> >> Gatessss..." will work?
>> >>
>> >> Hey, if I pray to ol' Bill, do you think I'll be a millionaire
>overnight?
>> >>
>> >> > If you insist on MS, at least install NT or 2K...
>> >> > WinME is a TOY!
>> >>
>> >> NT or 2K on 32MBytes of RAM. Be serious, please!
>> >
>> >Ewwww, I missed that part...
>>
>>
>> Xfree runs fine on 32M, even with a DnD desktop and a nice
>> WindowManager running... <snicker>
>
>It runs great on mine too but I have 64MB and a 16MB Voodoo 3. (Mostly to
>counter-balance the slow P166 driving it all)
>
>One of the older 32MB P150 dev systems at work did great with KDE.
My old system was based on some Cirrus Logic 54xx chipset
running on VL...
It still trumped significantly faster hardware (in just about
any respect) runing NT4.
Past a certain point, the worst bottleneck in a GUI system is
the end user.
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 17 Jan 2001 18:46:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> BTW That 72 weeks assumes you turn off the computer when you go home,
>> and only work 40 hours a week. Bogus. It is really only about 18 weeks
>> of constant uptime (closer to 17).
> The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average desktop *IS*
> shutdown at night.
Thats windows thinking. It certianly doesnt need to be, and in my case, it
NEVER is. My computers never stop doing useful things, even at night while
im sleeping.
>> Well, there you have it, plain and simple. A study, funded by Microsoft,
>> that proves that while 2K is better than NT, it still sucks.
> The way they count failure is "unplanned reboot". Also note that they used
> beta versions of 2000 for the study (they also used the released version,
> but beta's were also used).
I havent had an unplanned reboot on any of the UNIX (including linux) boxen
I control since the last hardware failure, which was about 6 months ago.
> The interesting thing about the study is that the number of hours monitored
> for NT were a little over 1/3 of the number of hours monitored for 2000, and
> the number of hours monitored for 98 were a little more than 20% of those of
> 2000.
Why is this interesting?
>> Just so people know, MTTF is the "mean time to failure" which means that
>> given any Win2K system, there is a good chance it will crash within 120
>> days, and that NT will crash within 38 days, and Win98 will crash within
>> 9 days. There is also a likelihood that it will be much sooner.
> or much longer.
Not likely. See one of the myriad of uptime reports websites for details.
>> There is nothing more to be said. The MS-Zealots claim that their NT/2K
>> systems have longer uptimes, but they are either being dishonest or they
>> are not the norm. Microsoft has funded this study and used the results
>> in an advertisement campaign.
> And what's the MTTF of Linux? Empirical studies, not anectdotes about
> single systems.
Again, take a look at one of the myriad of uptimes pages. That is, if
you are willing, and if you do not believe that they are some kind of
schwa plot to make everyone hate windows with lies and deciet.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:48:15 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:09:48 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> Xfree runs fine on 32M, even with a DnD desktop and a nice
>> WindowManager running... <snicker>
>
>It runs, but struggles a bit.
It doesn't even do that.
It runs better than faster machines, running with more memory,
faster video, a faster video bus, and a faster storage bus
(SCSI versus IDE) running NT.
It does so even under extra loading like compiling a kernel
and wine at the same time while doing the typical user
desktop things like running office suites and bloated web
browsers.
You could even add a few 100M IDE->IDE file copies on the
same IDE channel and physical device and the 32M 486 will
still continue to outrun the better equiped NT box.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:09:09 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:07:48 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <93tsln$jap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:06:51 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Donn Miller wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> True. But DirectX was supposed to be their answer to Windows gaming
>> performance problems.
>
>Uhhh... I'm getting above 100FPS is many games using DirectX... my refresh
>rate is only 75HZ. DirectX is very fast indeed.
[deletia]
>> Another classic case of the Microsoft WASTING AWAY your MACHINE.
>>
>> However 3d on Linux is simply a bullet!
>
>According to Tom's Hardware, 3D games on Windows 2000 are faster than that
>of Linux using NVidia hardware... so I'm not sure how you can make this
>claim.
100FPS on a Geforce2 versus 120.
According to your own comments that makes Linux "very fast indeed".
[deletia]
Even a G400 or Voodoo5 can get 70 (in the same context).
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
