Linux-Advocacy Digest #540, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 22:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (Charlie Ebert)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Server Saga (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("Martin Eden")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I just can't help it! (Michael Vester)
Re: I just can't help it! (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Donn Miller)
NEW: Richard Stallman's speech on FSM & GNU/Linux (James Thornton)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" (mlw)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:59:06 GMT
In article <3a6620cc$0$73956$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
>"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...
>
It was more.
{snip}
>
>Your milage may vary. I've seen X crash so often I would never ever think of
>using it. Period.
>
I run X all the time. It never goes down.
I have applications die occassionally but I've never had
X lock up or go down.
>>
>
>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).
>
Agreed.
>
>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
>
>
The cost and stability of Windows makes it totally useless.
Charlie
------------------------------
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 02:01:00 GMT
In article <9458ul$svo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
>
I want a rematch with 2.4 installed here.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 01:46:17 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:41 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:04:16 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:38 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:14:37 GMT, Chad Myers
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001
> >15:19:13
> >> >> >> >> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >message
> >> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >> So? What's the real problem with that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><sigh> That question alone proves you have no concept of what
> >> >> >we're talking about.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We don't have all the time in the world.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then educate us, assuming you can actually articulate
> >> >> the details of the 'problem'.
> >> >
> >> >Splitting all the movies into 15 minute segments just to
> >> >accomodate our poor choice of a poorly designed OS wouldn't
> >> >not be high on the list of things the Video department
> >> >would've wanted to do. Especially since they were strapping
> >>
> >> Odd then that consumer digital is distributed
> >> in JUST THAT FORMAT.
> >
> >huh?
> >
> >1.) I don't think you know what you're talking about
> >2.) We weren't distributing "consumer digital" products, we
>
> Even so.
>
> How lame can your authoring system be if it can't seamlessly
> cut together disparate pieces of video. HELL, that's the whole
> point of a corporeal video editing system.
<sigh> It's not that it CAN'T, it's that we don't have the time
to do it.
It takes time to split it into pieces. It then takes more time
to put the pieces back together for final editing and post
production.
It would essentially triple the time it took with a real OS that
could handle > 2GB files.
It's really obvious, you're making an argument out of nothing.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:04:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Ginn wrote:
>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]
And in that respect it has been honored by the U.N. as one of
the best gifts the world has ever received. In 3rd world countries
it's brining computer education to the masses.
Linus should be awared the nobel prize.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:06:58 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:12:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
> Ebert) wrote:
>
> >
> >You still haven't heard of Debian? You know Debian has
> >4400 packages and is designed to be downloaded from the
> >net for free. All of it.
>
> Sure I have.
> Corel tried to build that horrific distribution they put out on
> Debian.
Mentioning Corel and Debian GNU/Linux in the same sentence tends to suggest
that you have never run either.
The only people who could possibly see a connection are either working for
the Corel marketing department or those who get the sum total of their
information from the same.
Debian is (IMO) comparable to the best commerical operating systems
(Solaris, Win2K, FreeBSD, etc.). CLOS is at best a pathetic joke, even
compared to the dismal quality of most other canned Linsux distributions.
Take a week and install Debian and see what I mean.
------------------------------
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 02:07:47 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:46:17 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:41 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:04:16 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:38 GMT, Chad Myers
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:14:37 GMT, Chad Myers
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> >> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001
>> >15:19:13
>> >> >> >> >> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> >message
>> >> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >> [deletia]
>> >> >> >> So? What's the real problem with that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><sigh> That question alone proves you have no concept of what
>> >> >> >we're talking about.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >We don't have all the time in the world.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then educate us, assuming you can actually articulate
>> >> >> the details of the 'problem'.
>> >> >
>> >> >Splitting all the movies into 15 minute segments just to
>> >> >accomodate our poor choice of a poorly designed OS wouldn't
>> >> >not be high on the list of things the Video department
>> >> >would've wanted to do. Especially since they were strapping
>> >>
>> >> Odd then that consumer digital is distributed
>> >> in JUST THAT FORMAT.
>> >
>> >huh?
>> >
>> >1.) I don't think you know what you're talking about
>> >2.) We weren't distributing "consumer digital" products, we
>>
>> Even so.
>>
>> How lame can your authoring system be if it can't seamlessly
>> cut together disparate pieces of video. HELL, that's the whole
>> point of a corporeal video editing system.
>
><sigh> It's not that it CAN'T, it's that we don't have the time
>to do it.
What time? They would probably spend more time in manual
administration than the engineering time it would take to
add that kind of intellegence to a media editor..
>
>It takes time to split it into pieces. It then takes more time
>to put the pieces back together for final editing and post
>production.
>
>It would essentially triple the time it took with a real OS that
>could handle > 2GB files.
>
>It's really obvious, you're making an argument out of nothing.
No it isn't.
There are windows shareware tools that do that sort of
thing. It's hardly rocket science. Your illustrious
employer is being shown up by DVD pirates.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:10:36 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:06:09
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> J Sloan wrote:
>> >
>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > > I don't really consider Mindcraft or ZDNet major industry benchmarks,
>> > > necessarily. While relevant, TPC and similar industry benchmarks
>> > > are more reliable and standards based.
>> > >
>> > > c't is just FUD all around no matter what they're comparing.
>> >
>> > Spoken like a loyal wintroll -
>> >
>> > c't is one of the few magazines that don't worship ms.
>> >
>> > c't is excellent and technically accurate - they do tend to tell
>> > it like it is, and let the chips fall where they may.
>> >
>> > Perhaps chad didn't realize the magazine is in German,
>> > and that's why none of it makes sense to him?
>> >
>> > jjs
>>
>> Any reason to think that if it were written in english he would notice
>> it?
>
>Ha ha, I hope all you immature assholes have had your fun.
>
>When you're done with your adolescent ad homonim attacks, please
>post a URL for a c't article praising MS for something.
Actually, that wasn't an ad hominem attack (note spelling), Chad. They
were just making fun of you. They aren't always the same thing. An ad
hominem attack would be, for instance, saying you don't have a valid
opinion about Linux because you are not familiar with c't. Guiliano and
J are probably quite aware that you don't have a valid opinion, but they
base that on your opinions themselves. It is the fact that your
opinions are demonstrably inaccurate, unreasoning and absolute, and
generally little more than photocopies of the press releases from One
Microsoft Way, not the fact that you don't read c't, which is the
problem, and everyone who reads COLA is well aware of it. So Giuliano
and J were just mocking you, basically.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:11:42 GMT
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 17 Jan 2001
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> When you're done with your adolescent ad homonim attacks, please
>> post a URL for a c't article praising MS for something.
>>
>
>Do you honestly believe that MS can be praised for something, except for
>an unattained ability to violate all the ethics of commerce?
Well, ZDNet does it all the time, but that's part of that "violate all
the ethics" part, probably.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:19:06 -0700
mlw wrote:
>
> The whole Win2K, NT, 98 MTTF study, funded my Microsoft, touted by
> Microsoft as proof of improvement, just proves what we have been saying
> here for years. Not only that, the MTTF hours in the test mirror very
> closely what we have been seeing.
>
> So, I'm going to take this time to happily gloat.
>
You are simply stating the obvious. My Suse Linux 2.2.10 at
full bore crunching seti, netscape, mysql, apache, etc
uptime : 7:08pm up 44 days, 15 min, 2 users, load average:
1.52, 1.22, 1.07
My W2K machine at work locks up once or twice a day, no BSOD,
just frozen. NT 4.0 was 2-4 times a day. So W2K is twice as
good as far as I am concerned.
Michael Vester
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A credible Linux advocate,
> Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
> NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
> Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
>
> No responsible OS company would advertise these numbers, they are a
> disgrace.
>
> Can you imagine the U.S.S. Yorktown having to reboot every 120 days? (60
> To be the lower boundary of the mean.)
>
> These numbers are so bad, so indicative of the crap that has been sold
> by Microsoft, that it is almost a joke. The irony is that Microsoft,
> being the crap fest company that it is, thinks that these are good
> numbers.
>
> If Sun had these numbers on Solaris, it would probably take corrective
> action on its kernel team. I'm sure the same can be said of any
> competitive OS vendor. Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS, this is
> almost "smoking gun" proof. If there were real OS competition, Microsoft
> could not get away with this.
>
> The proof of Microsoft crap has been provided by Microsoft itself!!!
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:24:47 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mlw wrote:
>
> Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
> NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
> Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
It sure as hell blows the arguments of the Chads and a few others who
used to say that NT was as stable as linux and that most (all) NT
downtime was the result of operator/admin error rather than a defect in
the os.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:24:30 GMT
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:06:58 GMT, "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mentioning Corel and Debian GNU/Linux in the same sentence tends to suggest
>that you have never run either.
Don't you LinoScrews ever do your homework before spewing forth your
inaccurate, religious crap?
Corel is based on the Debian distribution.
http://linux.corel.com/products/linux_os/index.htm
>Take a week and install Debian and see what I mean.
Must one mother of an operating system if it takes a week to install.
Geeez and to think I was complaining that Win2k took an hour to
install.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: 17 Jan 2001 20:24:20 -0600
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But when Netscape 6 is working, it just looks such more _gorgeous_ than
> Internet Explorer!
Ah, but at least Konqueror is somewhat decent, save for those few JavaScripts
that refuse to work. Konqueror also starts up much much faster than Netscape
or Mozilla. Of course, people wouldn't mind that so much if the browser
wouldn't need to be restarted so often.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: James Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NEW: Richard Stallman's speech on FSM & GNU/Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:18:01 GMT
FYI: ArsDigita University made a RA streaming video of Richard
Stallman's speech on the Free Software Movement and the GNU/Linux
Operating System that he gave at ArsDigita University earlier this
month.
A link to the video is on the aduni website, and I have a link to it at
the top of http://www.jamesthornton.com/.
James Thornton
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:34:04 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
You are absolutely right. Linux is no Windows killer.
With proud uptimes like:
Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours (120 days)
NT: MTTF 919 Hours (38 Days)
Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
Microsoft will destroy itself.
Linux will step in, easily, when people wake up an realize the crap they
have been using for so long.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:35:15 GMT
ono wrote:
>
> btw: With W2K you can run a webserver while playing a DirectX game. Thats
> what I call 'really' using a computer! W2K downtime is most likely caused by
> performance-freaks installing the newest GeForce beta drivers ;-).
The question is, can W2K play an MP3 file without breaking up, while
compiling a Borland C++ project?
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:37:24 GMT
Said LShaping in alt.destroy.microsoft on 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.
I agree; these numbers are obviously wildly idealistic. But that is
what "mean time to failure" numbers are. They are meant to measure the
chance of failure, not the regularity of failure. They are
statistically difficult to deal with, except as a direct comparison with
complete substitute. I honestly don't think they should be applied to
anything but hardware, either.
>>> 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.
Only because if you don't shut down Windows systems every night, they
crash. Doh.
>Mean time between failure is usually calculated by continuous
>operation.
Mean time between failures is *always* calculated based on continuous
operation. Or, rather, it doesn't theoretically matter whether it is
operating or not, and so it is assumed it can be. Another reason why
MTTF metrics for software are just too stupid to contemplate. It is
rather laughable that Microsoft has to use the calculated chance of
hitting a bug, with non-random input in an ideal environment, in order
to pretend their software is reliable.
>>> 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.
I am quite unhappy when NT SP4 has to be rebooted after 48 hours, which
happens to me a lot. But I use 'suspend' mode occasionally at night (to
shut the fan down), and NT can't really handle suspend mode correctly at
all. Neither could WinDOS, for that matter. So I'll admit mine is not
a "fair" test. As if I'm at all interested in being fair to monopoly
crapware.
>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.
It is kind of amazing how much that annoying little trait frustrates so
many people, and so well epitomizes the dawning recognition that maybe
there's something to this "monopoly crapware" stuff, after all.
Of course, we have yet to see the MTTF for Linux, or any other Unix,
AFAIK. You don't measure MTTF for *software*, for christ's sake! It
doesn't wear out; if its functioning now, it should continue functioning
practically forever. This, I think, is an illustration of the fact that
Microsoftheads don't understand at all what "reliable" means, when it
comes to software.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
