Linux-Advocacy Digest #538, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (Charlie Ebert)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: The Linux Show! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: Why Hatred? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Open Source & security holes (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Poor Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Poor Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Poor Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:06:24 GMT
In article <ekl96.134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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.
>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?
>
Eric dear! Your mommie's call you home now.
She's saying that Uptime is the designator for OS's and
Mean Time To Failure is used on Hardware.
Since Linux doesn't fail, they have no figures.
Now go home to mommie and let her kiss that booboo.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:04:21 +1300
> > 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.
But consider for a moment what this test is saying... a failure on
average every 9 days for 98 WITH a daily reboot. Same shit, different
number of days for NT and 2k. So 2k falls over less than the others, but
can still be relied upon to fail on average every 120 days WITH a daily
reboot. How well does it function if you DON'T reboot it? I think I'd
rather not find out.
> 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).
What MS call a beta and what I call a beta differ quite substantially (MS
charge money to take part in their testing program, and then release a
product that appears not to have gone through said testing program), so I
don't pay any attention to whatever suffix MS has chosen to attach this
week.
> 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.
I think we'll have to disagree on what's interesting as well ;) , but
could you explain why it is you find this interesting? If 2k was staying
up much longer than 98 and NT4 (which noone will dispute), it makes sense
that they would have to monitor it a larger number of hours.
> > 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.
Can't really dispute this... "a likelihood" is sufficiently vague either
way...
> > 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 the linked NSTL page:
To gather data from actual customer sites, NSTL installed a tool that
recorded the uptime for each desktop and the occurrence of planned and
unplanned shutdowns. The reliability tool operated in the background and
no way affected the operation of the systems participating in the study.
Let's ignore the fact that these people are making a claim about their
tool that can't be backed up, and assume it's correct. They are taking
uptime data from actual client systems. Well, my client only HAS one
linux box, so I can only give you the data from that. I can't even prove
that the numbers I could give you are valid, so you can quite easily
discount them.
But the fact is that the mail server runs on linux, does more work than
any other machine in the building, and it hasn't failed since one of the
drives in the RAID went belly up last year (the drive failed due to a
power glitch, which also caused the server to reset, but when the linux
system came back up, it kept on trucking just fine (thanks RAID)). Aside
from the mail system, it also runs apache to provide a customized admin
interface, and NOT ONE PART of the system has failed.
The point is, Linux is characterised by a lot (a LOT) of one-off success
stories. You can't really discount them all because noone wants to pay
for a mass testing of linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:04:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:29:06 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:51:23 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I have no idea what you're talking about -
>>
>> That's because I caught you in a blatant lie. You can't view the movie
>> clips because they are QT4 format and nothing under Linux supports it,
>> unless they changed things in the last couple of days.
>
>What movie clips are you referring to?
As I understand it, "Antitrust" has some movie clips in Quicktime format.
>
>jjs
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:19h:06m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:35:45 -0500
In <c1.2b5.2YzdpG$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/17/2001
at 04:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>uhhh, let's see ... you can run DOS apps using Softwindows in Irix
>... so I guess that you couldn't *possibly* assume one can run DOS
>programs on an SGI machine
You can assume what you like. But treating your assumptions as fact
makes you look like a fool. So does drawing false analogies. Assuming
that you can run programs on a particular machine is not the same as
assuming that you can run them on a particular operating system. You
didn't assume that you could run Linux on an IBM mainframe, you
assumed that you could run it on OS/390.
You can assume that since BeOS and NT both run on a Pentium, you can
run your NT applications under BeOS. Lot's of luck.
>here's a quicky for you from an IBM
>page that mentions "mainframe" :
>"We offer network professionals a wealth of courses from beginner
> to advanced to help expand their knowledge of IBM OS/390 (and
> the earlier counterpart MVS) mainframe systems."
They're talking about a specific family of operating systems. They re
not saying that programs from other operating systems will run on
OS/390. And it has no bearing on what the other site said, or on the
assumptions that you made about it. Nor does it justify attributing
your stupid assumptions to me. If you want to challenge my statement
that Linux won't run under OS/390, fine. But challenging a statement
that I didn't make is despicable. Nye kultury (sp?).
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:09:22 +1300
> What are the winvocates going to say? Micros~1 have now said that 9x and
> NT are poor (despite opperste claims from the winvocates).
In fairness to the winvocates, very VERY few of them have claimed that
Win9x was any good. Any that do you can quite safely consider based
outside of reality.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:07:21 +1300
> The conclusion is "You need to buy Whistler because Win-9x sucks".
> But I knew that already :o)
Curious that any company has this much in the testicle department.
"We sold you a POS OS for a grossly inflated price, and we admit it is a
POS. Here is our service pack... it's a new OS, and it costs a
horrendous amount as well. Stay tuned for the announcement in a year or
two when we figure out the replacement is shit as well, and we have an
even better product for you to buy."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:20:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:31:43 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Condon wrote:
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> Fine, I'll reword it just for you. Linux cannot replace Windows as the
>>> major OS of choice today.
>>
>
>Let me put an edge on this.
>
>
>Horse shit!
>
>You don't have a clue Fukenbush!
I think E.F. is right on this one. Until some issues are addressed --
mostly in terms of ease of use out of the box -- Linux can't be
a direct plug-in replacement for Windows. (Remember that most businesses
can't swap out all of their infrastructure at once; they do it a
piece at a time.)
There is the possibility that a company might be able to replace
NT SMB providers with SAMBA servers [*], though; NT webservers would
then be replaced by Apache units, and the users switch from
Microsoft Outlook to a POP-based Netscape setup. Or perhaps
they use StarOffice.
Once the users are suitably conditioned, the central mail
system can be switched over from Exchange to sendmail or qmail,
and the long process of switching user boxes would begin,
probably department by department. The infrastructure will
have to support mixed-use SMB and NFS for awhile (easy enough
for Linux).
It gets worse if some of those users are program developers.
It's not clear what would replace VC++, without retraining (I
can live with vi and gmake, but not everyone's so willing to
switch like that :-) ).
As for starting a new company -- probably best to do it right, and
that means using Linux. :-) But I doubt that company startups
are the bulk of new computer and/or OS sales.
So I think E.F. is right -- today. Tomorrow might be another matter,
especially if Java takes off (it's doing pretty darned well already).
>
>Charlie
>
>
[*] A more likely scenario is that central disk service is provided
by something like a Network Appliances box, which would require
very little action to flip over to NFS, as I understand it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:19h:13m actually running Linux.
You were expecting something relevant down here?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:26:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:58:40 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Ilja Booij wrote:
[snip for brevity]
>> One of the things I really like about CLIs: You can explain to
>> somebody (either on the phone, or via email) which commands to type,
>> instead of saying: No go left with mouse, CLICK, no make six circles
>> and do a double backflip (don't forget to press the left button while
>> you're upside down) and press again.
>> just saying
>>
>> dd cp ~/files/foo ~/files/bar is so much easier
>>
>> Ilja
>
>Better than that...you can telnet into the box, and open up a "talk" window
>and type the commands in the talk window, and let the user cut & paste
>to his command line.
That, too -- and it takes up a lot less bandwidth (and paper size)
than cutting and pasting pictures of each "wizard form".
And yet...here we are, playing with cutesy slowly disappearing
menus and multicolored icons. Bleah.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:20h:26m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Open Source & security holes
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:31:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bones wrote:
>> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>[snipped: intra-kernel httpd is bad]
>
>> Just out of curiosity, why?
>
>Because the track record for HTTP server security on all platforms is less
>than spectacular. I'm talking about all httpd or equivalent software in
>general.
>
>> Can't security with this measure be tested the same
>> as other issues reguarding Kernel Security are?
>
>Sure they can, but probably won't be held to the same standard as anything
>that sprang from NET4. Http servers are one of those "gee-whiz" items that
>must be stuffed to the point of breaking with useless and buggy features.
>
>> 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?
>
>Yeah, that was my argument.
>
>> It's just another thing to test.
>
>Its also another potential target for a DoS attack or an exploit, one which
>could bring down the system.
>
>Charlie, this is my opinion. You understand I'm making a judgement based on
>things other than intimate knowledge of Tux. If you know something about Tux
>that I don't, then post it here for me to eyeball.
>
>
>----
>Bones
Your arguments sound - sound? That even types funny don't it.
I think on this one we will just have to wait and see.
You can make the argument that there are other security threats
which have been TESTED in our kernel and eliminated.
You could pose the argument that this would fall under that catagory.
You can pose the argument that apache has problems.
Therefore this will develop problems.
I'll leave this issue dead on the note that it's been my experience
that Unix is not Unix is not Unix.
OpenBSD is a far cry in security from RedHat.
Linus's group is a far cry from the Apache group.
And so on and so forth.
It is always the skill of the person running the gun and not
the gun which win's the gun battle.
The space shuttle would be a good example of a complex machine
which has many way's to blow up and once did! But people don't
think of the space shuttle in the same light they do airlines.
A team is not a uni-definition which fits every group of people.
Success makes one lazy.
Perhaps we need to clean up Sendmail and Apache.
Perhaps RedHat should have concentrated more on security and buffer
over-runs than they did.
The Kernel is the heart of the system. Heart surgery is hardly
thought of the same as a face lift.
There are many thoughts running thru my mind and you have but
a few of them on your screen now.
It's a shape up or ship out world.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:33:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Classy Jones wrote:
>Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
>
>
>
Suse can. Debian can. Mandrake can.
What is the problem here?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:34:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sauosol wrote:
>Your quite right, and this is the one point that embarrasses me most
>about Linux. It does not truly support the latest hardware and I'm
>afraid never will.
>
>Classy Jones wrote:
>
>> Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
>
UDMA 66 and 100 ARE the latest hardware.
And they are supported in Suse, Mandrake, Debian, and
appearently RedHat also.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:35:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin Ford wrote:
>Bartek Kostrzewa once wrote:
>>Sauosol wrote:
>>
>>> Your quite right, and this is the one point that embarrasses me most
>>> about Linux. It does not truly support the latest hardware and I'm
>>> afraid never will.
>>
>>Oh really? Well, out of the box, UDMA 66/100 doesn't work out of the box
>>on Windows neither, you have to install your controller's/mobo's drivers
>>first, and for Linux, that's either compiling some modules, or
>>recompiling the kernel if you don't want to use modules for that...
>>
>
>Can I just say
>
>IA-64
>
>booyakasha!
BRAVO!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:36:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> In article <v_Y86.1681$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I wish you people would stop joining into the middle of the
>> >> > thread and misquoting me.
>> >> >
>> >> > He said that ReiserFS was shipping, which is a lie.
>> >>
>> >> "Shipping with SuSE" sure sounds like "shipping" to me.
>> >
>> >The 2.4 kernel was "shipping" with certain distributions for
>> >trial a few months ago, did that mean that the 2.4 kernel was
>> >released/shipping?
>> >
>> >Give me a break.
>> >
>> >-Chad
>> >
>> >
>>
>> By certain distribution you are refering to the Caldera one.
>>
>> Nobody else shipped the beta of the 2.4 kernel.
>
>Actually, SuSE 7.0 has both a very recent 2.2 kernal AND a 2.4.test-xx kernel.
>
RedHat had a test kernel also but it wasn't the DEFAULT.
That's the way I took it.
>
>> And the Caldera box was marked "Technology Preview Release".
>>
>> Charlie
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>DNRC Minister of all I survey
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:49:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:06:50 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <v_Y86.1681$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I wish you people would stop joining into the middle of the
>> >> >> > thread and misquoting me.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > He said that ReiserFS was shipping, which is a lie.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Shipping with SuSE" sure sounds like "shipping" to me.
>> >> >
>> >> >The 2.4 kernel was "shipping" with certain distributions for
>> >> >trial a few months ago, did that mean that the 2.4 kernel was
>> >> >released/shipping?
>> >> >
>> >> >Give me a break.
>> >> >
>> >> >-Chad
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> By certain distribution you are refering to the Caldera one.
>> >>
>> >> Nobody else shipped the beta of the 2.4 kernel.
>> >
>> >Actually, SuSE 7.0 has both a very recent 2.2 kernal AND a 2.4.test-xx kernel.
>>
>> Is that an installation option? Is 2.4 the default? Is there
>> any warning given when you attempt to install it? Is it just
>> an rpm you can use?
>
>Don't know...I didn't buy SuSE 7.0...it's just listed on the box as having
>both 2.2.13 or 2.2.14 and 2.4.test-whatever...
>
>I'm waiting for suse to put out a 2.4.actual_release_number distro.
>
>
For instance they have the test kernel sources on Debian so you
can roll your own if you want to.
>>
>> --
>>
>> >
>> > ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
>>
>> This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
>>
>> Kyle Jacobs, COLA
>>
>> |||
>> / | \
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>DNRC Minister of all I survey
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:50:27 GMT
In article <yKh96.4226$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers 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?
>
>-Chad
>
>
Well then go ahead and invade Russia during the winter.
Who cares.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:52:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley wrote:
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "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.
>
>So, Erik, you've joined the denizens of Windows advocates that read
>COLA then?
>
>How sad is that?
>
>You honestly believe that Aaron Ginn is "in denial"? Perhaps you
>should look in the mirror. I have one question that I'd love an
>answer to:
>
> Will we be buying Windows 2020? How about 2050? 2500?
>
>Are we going to fork over $200 every two years *forever*? Linux/Open
>Source (BSD, whatever) *will* be the norm, it's inevitable.
>
>> If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't care enough to post a denial
>> unsolicited.
>
>... and a Windows advocate posting to COLA to tell a Linux user that
>they are in denial doesn't signal something? :)
>
>FWIW, my first Linux distribution was Slackware 2.02. I ran X11R4
>with twm or (gak) fvwm as my window manager. My file manager was mc,
>and xterm was my primary GUI app. I used to have to go down to
>SVGAlib to run the few games available. I had to calculate the
>modelines for my monitor (a Mag DX17f) and video card (a Diamond S3
>with 2MB of RAM) and manually insert them in XF86Config. I had to put
>in the IO port for my ISA Adaptec 152x (for my SCSI Zip drive) in
>lilo.conf. I had to compile many packages myself. I had to write my
>own smb.conf and httpd.conf.
>
>RedHat 7 is compeletly different -- all my hardware was autodetected.
>A co-worker had a sansdisk (compactflash reader) that wouldn't work
>under Windows 2000. I had just upgraded to 2.4.0 (final) and so I
>plugged it into my USB port and it just *worked* with no problem at
>all. (Well, actually I didn't have fat16 compiled, because I never
>use it -- but that was my fault and took 20 seconds to make the
>module). Ditto for a Lucent Orinoco WaveLan card. It would *not*
>work on their Windows 98 machine, but just auto-detected in my PCMCIA
>port. (turns out they needed to to a ROM update to fix the problem,
>for some reason -- the Sansdisk still doesn't work under w2k,
>though).
>
>--
>The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
Could I just add to what you are saying here.
EF is a total asshole.
Hope that helps!
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
******************************
