Linux-Advocacy Digest #537, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (.)
Re: Linux Kernel Engineer (.)
Re: More Linux woes (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (.)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (.)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (LShaping)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (.)
Re: More Linux woes (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Server Saga (Aaron Ginn)
Re: More Linux woes (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Edward Rosten)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" (Edward Rosten)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (mlw)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" ("mmnnoo")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Benchmark tests - who cares? (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:05:29 +1300
> 2.) We weren't distributing "consumer digital" products, we
> were making videos. Breaking up the already whole videos is
> just ANOTHER step we'd have to go through to reach the final product.
> All because of Linux's poor design. That's not a valid excuse
> when there are plenty of better choices out there.
Linux is not at all at fault in this scenario. You have issues with the
limitations of one filesystem. Exactly like the limitations of FAT or
NTFS (I know NTFS can handle larger files than ext2, but that doesn't
mean it doesn't have its limits).
> In this case, Linux would've cost almost 5x as much as the Windows
> 2000 situation. We saved thousands of dollars by NOT using the
> "free" Linux.
Wow! Now that you have produced this 5x figure from your arse, I am
completely convinced! I'm switching to 100% MS today!
> I didn't say they didn't have the capability, all I'm saying is
> splitting the video is a step that doesn't need to be taken
> in the full process.
I can envision multiple scenarios in which it would speed up processing
to have the large video split into scenes to be manipulated directly.
Of course, it's going to depend on what you actually DO to the video...
why don't you tell us? I think the reason you don't give any details is
that you know someone can provide a simple solution using linux, and you
just want to claim it has 'poor design'.
Are you the guy I read about who refuses to acknowledge the use of linux
in doing CGI for movies? It would fit your hands-over-ears-yelling
attitude.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux Kernel Engineer
Date: 17 Jan 2001 23:11:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> They are currently working in stealth mode to create an innovative and
> revolutionary Internet storage and infrastructure product. They
> currently have over 100 employees and are rapidly growing.
Internet storage?
Heres some free advice:
Since hard drives are so cheap these days, and connections are still
generally slower than the bottleneck that is cheap ATA/66, you wont be
able to charge a thing for this service, all of your money will be made
with advertising.
If this is the case, the only way that you can succeed is to fill a niche
that has some room, mainly the pornography sharing niche. Ever since
lycos and exite offed (or greatly reduced) their 'clubs' or 'photo album'
services, hundreds of thousands of horny boys and girls need something
to whack off to.
Which is where the company youre representing can come in.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:13:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:34:51 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Nick Condon wrote:
>>
>> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
>> >
>> > This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
>>
>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>> Damn. Now I'm going to have to clean all that coffee off my monitor.
>
>Since when did the National Security Agency take charge of Mars landers?
You can never be too careful where Martians are involved. It's
all a gigantic conspiracy....
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and if I told you why, I'd have to abduct you... :-)
EAC code #191 5d:17h:18m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: 17 Jan 2001 17:13:15 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You have never used terminal services and have no idea of what it
is.
> > > >
> > > > I am talking the complete full totally just like you're sitting in
front
> > of
> > > > it administer. You are looking at the desktop and have access to
> > everything.
> > > > Everything. Get it? It's like being there.
> > >
> > > Oh yea, right, sure, I'll run terminal services on a web server box.
> >
> > why not?
> >
> > > Cold day in hell, are you insane? The whole terminal services
> > > infrastructure is a disaster, it requires at least 32M for the
service,
> > > and 4M-8M per connection. That's 40M ram (minimum requirements and you
> > > know what that really means!) just for for the server!!!! Under UNIX
> > > remote access / configuration requires 0 additional resources, just
> > > what it takes to connect.
> >
> > I dispute the 32M claim, that's just not so. I've run a W2K server
without
> > and then with and don't see a 32M difference. Otherwise, simply run the
> > telnet service of W2K....
>
> That 32M number is right from Microsoft knowledge base. Look it up if
> you like.
I am reporting from what I have seen with my own two eyes. Adding terminal
services did not increase the Mem load by 32 megs...
> >
> > >
> > > Terminal Services required an extensive rewrite of low level
components
> > > of NT 4.0 just to shoe horn it in. It is a "service" not a tool. It is
> > > not designed to be an administration portal, it is designed to be an
> > > application service. It is very heavy and a very poor choice when all
> > > you want to do is administer a system.
> >
> > It did require a heft rewrite - but it was done for NT4. Now in W2K it
was
> > in there from the word go. Again, if ALL you want to do is administer
the
> > system, use the telnet client or any of a dozen other RPC tools.
>
> Not all configuration access is available via telnet. Only those with an
> extra text mode tool.
I am unaware of any configuration change to windows that I can't do through
the command line BUT I'll stress that I've very rarely tested that claim
because I use remotelyanywhere (not pcAnywhere) or terminal services
(prefered)
> >
> > >
> > > Lets talk about bandwidth, shall we? try using terminal services over
a
> > > 28K modem, or even 128~384 DSL!! There is no way you can claim that
this
> > > is a workable setup. It isn't even worth discussing.
> >
> > OH PLEASE - get real. RDP was designed for low speeds, ICA equally. You
> > cannot saturate a DSL connection with RDP. You have obviously NEVER used
> > this product otheriwse you'd never make such obvious mistakes in your
FUD. I
> > have not used TS over 28.8k, true, but I've used it over 56K and it's
ok,
> > not speedy but ok. Over 128K ISDN? Just like being there. You really
should
> > try something before trying to put it down.
>
> Yes, I have seen it work, and it is sort of cool, but I can also see
> that given any real internet connection, with occasional hiccups and
> periodic slowness, it is painful to use.
Opinions may vary but this is much better than not "even worth discussing."
>
> It is not viable as a remote administration portal.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms. It allows you to do EVERYTHING
as if you were on the console itself. And it works over a 28.8 connection
reasonably. What more could be required? Oh, and it is encrypted. And the
data compressed.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't trifle me with your NT crap. It ain't even close.
> > > >
> > > > Do a little reading and researching, after you see what can be done
> > through
> > > > the built-in terminal services you'll be back to apologize if you
have
> > any
> > > > decency. W2K can have EVERY administration task performed remotely.
> > >
> > > Please, I know NT and 2K very well, thank you. I am, after all, an
> > > NT/Windows developer when the money is right. I get my stupid MSDN
email
> > > updates regularly.
> >
> > I find that hard to believe - and if it's true then you are a very poor
> > "nt/windows developer" - if you don't even know the basic specs and
> > capabilties of Terminal Services.
> >
> > >
> > > Just tell me, you can dial up AOL, log in to your office system and
> > > administer it easily using terminal services.
> >
> > ABSOLUTELY - have done this many times when a local ISP wasn't
available!!
>
> I guess your definition of usable is different than mine. I have seen
> terminal services and it is slow and cumbersome, I would never consider
> it for the role your are saying it fills. It's speed is kind of similar
> to X, and while I think X is better, I still wouldn't even use X in this
> configuration.
Your milage may vary. I've seen X crash so often I would never ever think of
using it. Period.
>
> >
> > >Tell me you can add
> > > terminal services to heavily loaded web server without affecting it
> > > performance.
> >
> > don't be silly, TS to a "heavily" loaded web server without affecting
> > performance? Tell me what service you can add to any heavily loaded
server
> > and not affect performance. The answer is no.
>
> I UNIX, there is no need to add a service, and this is the point, remote
> access is built in to basic networking, or in the case of SSH, so
> lightweight that it does not affect performance.
There is no debate. Telnet is a free load for Unix - but it's also the same
for Windows. You do pay a price for Terminal services - let me remind you
and our readers that unlike in NT4, there are two modes of terminal services
with W2K. The mode I'm talking about is remote administration mode, NOT
application mode. Application mode is the one that adds overhead and many
megs - remote administration is very lightweight and adds NO overhead if
it's not in use. BIG differenes here, perhaps your only experiences are with
application mode TS (or NT4TS, ugh).
>
> > BUT - why TS into a web
> > server? You can remote admin the entire webserver using HTML tools from
any
> > web browser without taxing the system in the least. You can telnet in
and do
> > it. You can use RPC tools of various kinds. Dude - have you never even
used
> > IIS? Come on!
>
> You can administer the HTTP server and IIS components, no one argues
> this. Can you re-home the back end network? Can you add IP routes? Can
> you diagnose the Oracle connection problem? What if IIS dies?
You do not need IIS for TS to work - that's optional. You can download TS
client from MS free.
Yes, you can change anything about the network. Yes, I have added and
deleted and modified the IP routing table, added, deleted and changed the
back-end, added, removed, restarted services, added removed edited users,
shares, worked on the DNS, changed DHCP, affected the AD. Never use Oracle,
but can effortlessly manage SQL 7 and 2000... restart IIS (but never had
to).
I think I've made my points
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: 17 Jan 2001 23:13:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:944i4h$2vd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Linux isn't anywhere. It's Linux that has the uphill battle. Windows
>> >> > is everywhere and not giving up any market share to anyone.
>> >>
>> >> I know, we truly want to believe that, Chad - I'm with you,
>> >> I really am, but let's face reality:
>> >>
>> >> * Windows/iis has been steadily losing ground to linux/apache
>> >> in the web server market.
>>
>> > If you're referring to the heavily skewed Netcraft, results,
>> > I would point you to:
>>
>> > http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
>>
>> > Netcraft counts each virtual host as a server, which is grossly
>> > incorrect.
>>
>> Because it makes windows, which cannot handle the number of virtual
>> hosts that linux (or any other UNIX) can, look very bad.
> Oh really? And genius period man - tell the class ... what's the limit of
> virtual hosts for IIS (free hint#1: it isn't any windows limitation, you
> yutz)?
Alright, you stupid bastard, on absolutely, ABSOLUTELY identical hardware, (it
was the same machine):
IIS: 250
Apache under Freebsd: 22,000
Apache under linux: 18,000
And thats the end of the story. IIS chokes HARD above 50 on said configuration,
and dies utterly at 250. It simply cannot handle it.
You will of course find lots of people who swear up and down that theyve seen
a couple of thousand virtual hosts running on one IIS install on one machine.
Theyre all lying.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: 17 Jan 2001 23:14:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers once wrote:
>> >
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Linux isn't anywhere. It's Linux that has the uphill battle. Windows
>> >> > is everywhere and not giving up any market share to anyone.
>> >>
>> >> I know, we truly want to believe that, Chad - I'm with you,
>> >> I really am, but let's face reality:
>> >>
>> >> * Windows/iis has been steadily losing ground to linux/apache
>> >> in the web server market.
>> >
>> >If you're referring to the heavily skewed Netcraft, results,
>> >I would point you to:
>> >
>> >http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
>> >
>> >Netcraft counts each virtual host as a server, which is grossly
>> >incorrect.
>> >
>> >For the numbers that really matter (Fortune and Global 500)
>> >IIS is in the lead. These are realatively new numbers, the gap
>> >is widening between IIS and Apache. Apache was the stronghold, now
>> >it's losing share left and right to IIS.
>> >
>> >iPlanet (Netscape) is a player now. Apache is on its way out, it's
>> >IIS and iPlanet now.
>> >
>> >> * Linux destroyed windows in the specweb results.
>> >
>> >Questionable.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> * IBM is investing a BILLION dollars in Linux this year.
>> >
>> >I'm suprised you mention that. IBM doesn't have a very good
>> >investment record... Lotus?
>> >
>>
>> Ho ho.
>>
>> IIS isn't even capable of staying up whilst doing virtual serving.
> Considering the recently released patch for W2K/IIS that will make it easier
> (it was already possible, but got a touch unweildly after about 5000) to
> host 10's of thousands (no upper limit) of hosts on a single server I'd say
> you are full of crap.
You are an idiot.
You have no experience with running IIS at that level. If you had any,
you would know full well that open queries on more than a couple of hundred
of those vhosts at the same time will kill IIS dead.
=====.
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:01:04 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [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)
I can't imagine trying to run Win98 for 216 hours straight. That sort
of test must rely on doing the same simple tasks repeatedly.
>> 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.
Mean time between failure is usually calculated by continuous
operation.
>> 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.
My experience with Windows 98 says that it would be much shorter than
216 hours. I am quite happy when Windows 98 runs for 48 hours without
having to reboot. But by that time, something internal usually is
messed up, which prevents properly shutting down. And then on the
reboot, that idiotic scandisk screen comes up blaming me for
improperly shutting down Windows. My experience with Windows 98
includes about fifty different configurations and thousands of hours
of use.
LShaping
>> 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] (.)
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: 17 Jan 2001 23:17:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2001 22:24:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> So have I, and it seems to be getting worse with every new release.
>>
>>You have not been using netscape from the very beginning; this is an
>>absolute lie.
> I was using Netscape while you were still in middle school sonny :)
I was in middle school (east coast lingo; that would be "junior high"
for most other north americans) in 1982.
> That's Windows and OS/2 versions.
I still dont believe you. You have enough of a vocabulary and skill
for lying to not be a complete moron; therefore if you have experience
in this field dating back that far, you must certianly be an idiot for
none of it actually rubbing off.
So between the choice of labeling you a liar or a moron, I take liar.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:20:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Todd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:05:48 +0800
<9435gs$bkm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Todd wrote:
>>
>> > Linux *is* too hard to use - Linux will *never* replace Windows on the
>> > desktop if Linux users have this attitude.
>>
>> The desktop is dying, anyway. The future is embedded, where
>> Linux dominates already.
>
>Funny... I've heard this comment for years now...
>
>Last couple of years it was Java replacing Windows...
>
>Hmmmm... guess some things never change!
I rather doubt Windows is going to die anytime soon. It's a bit
like COBOL and FORTRAN in that respect.
And look at how long DOS is taking to die; Cairo was supposed to
merge the NT and Win9x (then Win3.1) lines years and years back,
after Chicago came out (Win95). That was almost 6 years ago.
Now Whistler will finally kill the underlying DOS dead.
You'll pardon my slight skepticism, I'm sure.
And then there's the notion of Unix being old and antiquated.
Winvocates can't have it both ways. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:17h:20m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: 17 Jan 2001 15:41:47 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
> > Your sole purpose here is to inflame and troll.
>
> My sole purpose here is to counter Linux advocacy.
What purpose does that serve? I could understand someone wanting to
counter Windows advocacy, although I personally don't see any point in
it. Microsoft has continually demonstrated that they are more
interested in protecting their monopoly than they are in innovating.
But Linux? It's a free OS that has been built on the hard work of
those who are more concerned with creating something that people can
use than making a profit. Linux is the ultimate charitable effort,
allowing anyone to use a powerful computing system without regards to
that person's income. Linux makes it possible for millions of people
to learn and use computers without worrying about how they can afford
all the software. Piracy is non-existant with OSS. One single Linux
CD can be installed on as many school computers as one likes. It is
the ultimate computing educational tool as it comes with all the
source code. It can be used for a tremendous amount of good.
Even if I didn't know and love UNIX, I would still admire what Linux
represents. I certainly wouldn't feel the need to 'counter' it.
You're a strange bird.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:28:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 16 Jan 2001 22:44:33 GMT
<942ish$h1h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Attachments can not be posted to ALS.
>
>Who cares, kyle? Anyone who matters is reading this on COLA.
>
>And besides that, they most certianly can too.
Not directly. I would suggest the following.
If one is using vi, one can create a blank line, point the
cursor to it, and then type
!!(dmesg | gzip > dmesg.gz; uuencode dmesg.gz < dmesg.gz)
which will put an attachment in uuencoded form in place of
the blank line.
An alternative, if one is using Netscape, is to use MIME and
attach it; this is harder to read with non-MIME-aware
newsreaders, but easier to send. I do have a BASE64 encoder/
decoder written in Perl, although I haven't tested it, and
there are probably better ones out there anyway. :-)
(RFC2045 describes the encoding.)
>
>
>
>-----.
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:17h:27m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:34:59 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Netscape 1.01N was my third browser.
> >
> > ..can't wait for Opera to get out of Beta.
>
> Hmm... can't make up my mind about Opera...
>
> I've tried Netscape 6 on Windows - nice skins! Shame about the (i) speed
> (ii) occaisonal crash etc.
FYI Netscape 6 on Linux is the same. Nics but dog slow. On a P133 its
simply unworkable. I hope they improve it in the near future, since I
can't see how a browser can really be that slow.
-Ed
>
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
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]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:50:42 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2675184,00.html
Its a fairly poor atricle. Firstly its very confrontational, secondly it
uses the very old Linux-is-not-like-windows-so-its-too-hard mantra. This
guy expects to go from Windows to Linux with zero effort and zero
learning (how long did he spend learning windows in the first place?).
That is a very short sighted argument and indicates a very biased
opinion.
-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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:57:04 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch 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, that is if you'd bother to be realistic.
You are ill-informed.
> 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?
I'm not sure I have even seen a real test. From my own experience, in
the last few years, I have only seen a few times where Linux failed for
something other than a hard disk or power failure. I have usually
upgraded the OS, kernel, or hardware before the system had a chance to
crash.
On the other hand, the numbers presented by the study agree with my
observations of 98, NT.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:54:35 GMT
Is this supposed to convince me that I don't like Linux or something?
In article <8wo96.181521$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2675184,00.html
>
> My sentiments exactly.
>
> To quote from the article:
>
> "I am a geek by trade and I couldn't figure out how to perform simple
> tasks like setting the clock or resizing the desktop. Will some think I
> am a moron for not knowing how? Yes. Do I care? No. "You have to do it
> from the
> command line, why don't you use the command line?" Because I don't like
> the command line and neither does 90 percent of the population.
<snip>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:56:36 GMT
In article <ABh96.4222$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>Thank god Linus or the original designers didn't invent the light switch.
>
>If they did, all we'd have is four wires sticking out of the wall and
>a warning sticker that said, "WARNING: the amperage of the electrical
>current flowing through the copper wire is sufficient to cause tissue
>damage and possible cardio-pulimnary failure resulting in possible
>life loss".
>
>It doesn't actually tell you that if you grab the wires, you die. Kinda
>like all Unix/Linux error messages.
>
>It also doesn't tell you which two of the four wires are necessary
>to turn on the light. By the way, if you get it wrong and cross the wrong
>two wires, you'll blow the circuit and have to replace the fuse which is
>hidden inside the wall and requires knocking out part of the wall to
>reach.
>
>-Chad
>
>
I was so touched by this analogy of the situation that I'm
going to run out and buy Windows tommorrow and purge Linux
from my machine.
For years I've waited for the best argument to return to
Windows and it's finally arrived.
This guy is a regular Hemmingway.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Benchmark tests - who cares?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:00:30 GMT
In article <9435d4$mnk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Todd wrote:
>
>A hardware upgrade would benefit more than an OS upgrade - which would be a
>hell of a lot more expensive when you figure in labor retraining costs, etc.
>etc. etc.
>
>
>-Todd
>
Who plans on retraining Wintrolls?
Were just going to line them all up and fire them.
It's much more fun when you have group action.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
