Linux-Advocacy Digest #544, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? ("KLH")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Lincoln Peters)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Lincoln Peters)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (J Sloan)
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (J Sloan)
Re: Poor Linux (J Sloan)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:38:19 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.)
Of course! The issue with ease of use is debatable, though. But there will
always be niche applications that run only under Windows. An example that
pops to mind is a non linear video editing system. But this says nothing
about the merits of Windows itself. Also, the argument can be said in
reverse. Windows can not be a drop in replacement for GNU/Linux. There
probably are niche applications that run only on GNU/Linux...or perhaps they
only run on Unix-like systems.
Really you guys. You should be able to see the problems with your own
arguments yourself. I think perhaps you guys spend too much time on these
advocacy groups and constant debating is unsettling your wits.
>
> 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.
Here you are generalizing too much. What the company actually does is a very
pertanent question. Maybe they are outsourcing their web page. Maybe they
just use an external mail server. Maybe they use their software just for
accounting and email?
In order to make any sort of statement, you need to be more specific in your
examples in order to play the "if *I* was in charge of transision..." game.
>
> 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 :-) ).
A language is a language. If they can't transition to a new development
environment, then they probably shouldn't be programming. Transitioning code
is another problem altogether though.
>
> 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.
What they use depends entirely on what they do. No statements are valid
without this information.
>
> 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).
We always say tommorrow!
But it is true, GNU/Linux continues to improve daily. Every so often I see a
new project in the mist that seems like it could lessen the gap further. A
recent example is GStreamer (http://gstreamer.net/). Nautilus, of course,
has been in the works a while...so has Evolution.
There will always be problems, however, the limit as x approaches infinity,
perfection is indeed reached!
The evolution of the GNU/Linux system is no exageration. There are many
programmers developing their own software with a lot of interest in it and a
lot of commitment. Evidence is provided on the many mailing list archives in
the free software community.
There certainly is a form of rivalry between GNU/Linux and Windows. As
Windows improves, so does GNU/Linux. There is no doubt about it, we're in it
for the long haul.
>
> >
> >Charlie
> >
> >
>
Best Regards,
Kevin Holmes
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lincoln Peters)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:52:08 GMT
Probably true if you consider Solaris or VMS, but who can afford the
price of the software and specialized hardware?
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:39:38 GMT, "Stuart R. Fuller"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charlie Ebert <charlie> wrote:
>: Linux has the BEST uptime record of any operating system in the
>: world.
>
>Well, between Windows and Linux, that might be true. However, there's more to
>the world than Linux and Windows.
>
> Stu
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lincoln Peters)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:52:09 GMT
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:56:06 GMT, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charlie Ebert writes:
>> I've used FreeBSD and I have some comments.
>
>> It's license allows for corporations to steal the code and copyright it
>> for their own purposes,...
>
>No it doesn't.
>
>> ...thus not contributing back to the base code.
>
>No free software license requires that.
Actually, the GPL license (used for Linux) requires that anything
written for or with GPL software is made available to the public under
the GPL, including the source code. If someone ignores that
requirement, the Linux community probably won't use the program.
Remember all the trouble Corel got into when it tried to avoid
releasing some of the source code for its Linux software?
>
>BTW, much of the software you use every day on Linux is licensed under
>terms similar or identical to those used by FreeBSD.
Can you same some of that software?
>--
>John Hasler
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
>Dancing Horse Hill
>Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:59:58 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>This must be the most common and as well as the most ill informed
>misconception that winvocates seem to have. You can run Linux on
>an S/390 in one of four ways:
snip >>
> - as a guest under VM/ESA
>
> - under the Virtual Image Facility (VIF). You can think of VIF as a
> stripped down version of VM/ESA designed specifically to run Linux.
>
>It is simply not possible to run Linux under OS/390. You can run Linux
>along side of OS/390 with Linux in one LPAR and OS/390 in another, but
>then you are treating the S/390 as if it were two separate physical
>machines. You can not run Linux under OS/390.
>
>Gary
Gary - you probably missed the original reference -
In <c1.2b5.2YZhcC$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 12/14/2000
at 02:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>You ain't just whistlin' Dixie ... and the guys who can make Linux
>run on OS/390 in VM's
"VM" being OS/2 slang for a "Virtual Machine" EXACTLY as you
point out above. Oh ! Sooo sorry ! I called it a virtual machine
instead of a virtual image facility ! IBM's never called anything
a virtual machine (?) so the concept must be totally incompre-
hensible to y'all.
now this winvocate's bidding his adieux to the thread 'cuz it's
become stupid beyond belief.
--
härad ængravvåd
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:04:01 GMT
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And how many of these people are routine posters in AOS?
>
> Who - the malicious whiners, or the flamers? And what's AOS?
AOL=Alt.os.linux
> > How many OTHER Linux NG's are these people posting their "your too
> > dumb to use Linux" garbage in?
>
> I've no idea. I've usually gotten good, helpful answers, but I'm not
> out to deliberately find faults for whining ammunition.
Your lucky.
> > I can't even begin think how many times my Linux questions were
> > answered by "your just too dumb"
>
> I can imagine. Could you provide Deja URLs to some of your troubles,
> so that we may see how treatment from other newsgroups really is?
Just browse casually through alt.os.linux for awhile. That'll provide
enough up to date flaming for a life time.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:08:56 GMT
ono wrote:
> btw: With W2K you can run a webserver while playing a DirectX game.
(shrug) This sort of thing would only be considered remarkable
by someone coming from a microsoft background -
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:09:44 GMT
"Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It doesn't matter, does it. Maybe if Linux had it's configuration files
> > documented like FreeBSD does, I MIGHT be willing to waste my time
dealing
> > with the text files, but I'm not. What most important, I SHOULDN'T HAVE
TO.
>
> They're documented much better than any M$ shit.
You've never actually READ any books from Microsoft, have you?
------------------------------
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 06:22:45 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on 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?
Or copying a file! Or accessing the network! Screw 'compiling a C++
project; Windows (yes, 2K2) is a raging bomb of a performance nightmare.
Maybe on a benchmark it caches nicely, but as a desktop it sucks. You
can't do two things at once without one of them slowing down. Hell, you
can't do one thing over and over again without it slowing down. They
may have fixed enough bugs to keep the registry from just puking and
killing the OS every couple weeks, but it still will get useless after a
while. Reboots are your friend. Blech.
Windows 2000 could never replace Linux on a desktop.
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:25:10 GMT
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:19:56 +1300;
>> 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.
>
>I suspect you don't care (or perhaps already know?), but if you'd like to
>stop scandisk coming up just because the machine crashed, you can add
>Autoscan=0
>to your MSDOS.SYS file under the [Options] heading. Alternatively, you
>can install TweakUI and turn it off with that.
Yea, you can hit a key to abort it, too, but that's not quite the best
idea, is it? This is Windows we're talking about.
>In my personal experience, Win98 is the all time worst offender for not
>shutting down properly. I think it has a lot to do with some MS
>innovation called 'Fast Shutdown'. How ironic.
<*chuckle*>
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:25:39 GMT
Said nuxx in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:17:20 +0800;
>> 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.
>>
>Are we talking about desktops or servers here?
Computers.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:28:55 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> iPlanet (Netscape) is a player now. Apache is on its way out, it's
> IIS and iPlanet now.
OK, let me get this straight:
- iplanet is now a player (the new name will change something?)
- apache "on it's way out" (Last I checked it's lead was was still widening)
- now it's just iis and iplanet. (What about the other 72%?)
Good Lord, where does one begin?
>
> > * 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?
Lotus notes is used by a lot of large companies....
And you have to respect a behemoth like IBM - their
world class research and production facilities, their
vast experience with all types of computing environments...
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:31:46 GMT
Todd wrote:
> That could be true, but I wish it just *worked* under Linux.
Sure does for me, otherwise I'd be using someting else.
> I still can't
> get my ethernet card recognized under Red Hat 7.0.
Could it be you are trying to use an unsupported network card?
> And for some reason, it
> didn't seem to install sound card drives for my on-board sound.
Does it have drivers for your on-board sound?
I disabled mine & popped in a sound blaster -
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:38:50 -0600
"Lincoln Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:56:06 GMT, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Charlie Ebert writes:
> >> I've used FreeBSD and I have some comments.
> >
> >> It's license allows for corporations to steal the code and copyright it
> >> for their own purposes,...
> >
> >No it doesn't.
> >
> >> ...thus not contributing back to the base code.
> >
> >No free software license requires that.
>
> Actually, the GPL license (used for Linux) requires that anything
> written for or with GPL software is made available to the public under
> the GPL, including the source code. If someone ignores that
> requirement, the Linux community probably won't use the program.
No, it doesn't. It only requires you to make it available if you distribute
the binaries to anyone outside your organization.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:36:04 GMT
Todd wrote:
> I have RedHat 7.0... still trying to get my ethernet card up and running...
If it didn't work right out of the box either it's not a supported
card, or your bios is misconfigured.
> > The difference is I'm not stuck with ms windows...
>
> Well, I like a lot of OSes... but Windows 2000 is definitely the king of
> installation. I am really waiting for OS X though... I wish Apple had
> included the 'gaming' APIs... would be cool if MS ported DirectX to OS X.
I have windows 2000 professional - I don't really ever use it
unless I have to work on a word doc or something - for everything
else - web browsing, email, news, programming, 3d online gaming,
etc, I much prefer Linux - as for the windows box, it's used mainly
by my wife, for doing print shop, playing solitaire, and the occasional
email & web browsing.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:39:08 GMT
This is interesting - IIRC Linux was the first to support ATA 100.
Who's been spreading fud around here? (need I ask?)
jjs
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.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:51:21 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >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).
>
> I think its just as likely you're talking yesterday. ;-)
>
> There are no "issues" which need to be "addressed"; this is a market,
> not a project! There is production and purchasing and complaining and
> changing that needs to go on, sure. And that will start happening as
> soon as there is a free market. In fact, its kind of automatic. Until
> a monopoly shows up to point it out, we hardly even notice it.
No "issues" eh?
Let's take file sharing. Setting up your system to share with someone else
(outside of ftp and such). If that's a Windows machine, you use Samba, and
configuring this isn't too bad, but way out of reach of the average user of
today. God forbid they should want to change what they share.
No, it's not rocket science, but it's still too much for most users.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:07:22 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:944p4i$623$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Do you not understand the meaning of the word *MEAN* in Mean Time To
Failure?
> > 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?
Yes, all you need is one Linux machine that's failed. Mine has failed
dozens of times, and the linux newsgroups are full of them.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:09:17 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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.
>
> 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.
Unless you can cite a study, you're just stating your experience. Not the
same thing.
> On the other hand, the numbers presented by the study agree with my
> observations of 98, NT.
Case in point.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:09:47 -0600
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Sounds like you neglected to visit Netcraft and read the stats I posted
here a
> week or so ago.
Netcraft doesn't list unexpected downtime.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:13:11 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:944pas$623$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Are you an average user? I think not.
> >> 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.
Note the term *MEAN* in Mean Time to failure. That means *AVERAGE*, not
peak. That means there were in fact machines with much longer uptimes.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
