Linux-Advocacy Digest #545, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 05:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Gary Hallock")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("Adam Warner")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Perry Pip)
Re: I just can't help it! (Edward Rosten)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" (Pete Goodwin)
Oh look! A Linux virus! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Open Source & security holes (Pablo)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (Shane Phelps)
Re: Why Hatred? (Nick Condon)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: More Linux woes (Nick Condon)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Shane Phelps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:23:24 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "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?
I've been reading COLA for a long time, because (until last week) a Linux
user as well. Now i'm back to using FreeBSD.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:25:09 -0600
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "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.
>
> That's cute! So if I deny what you just said, or if I even respond to
> you, that's further proof that I care. I think you're the one
> displaying flawed logic.
Not at all. Rebutting a statement made about you means you care about
yourself and what people think about you. Which is fine. However, making
such a statement unsolicited for no apparent reason says otherwise.
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:20:57 +0500
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
In article <c1.2b5.2Z0H9N$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> Gary - you probably missed the original reference -
>
> In <c1.2b5.2YZhcC$[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.
>
No, I didn't miss anything. You did. OS/390 does not have or create
virtual machines. VM/ESA creates virtual machines. VM/ESA is an
independent OS having nothing to do with OS/390. You can not run
VM/ESA on OS/390. You can not create virtual machines on OS/390.
You can not run Linux on OS/390. Period.
The Virtual Image Facility is yet something else. It is brand new and
again has nothing to do with OS/390. VIF does not run on OS/390. It
runs on the bare metal.
Gary
------------------------------
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 07:23:47 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 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.
Which also means there were machines with much shorter uptimes.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:26:50 +1200
Hey .,
> Remember what would happen when you fingered
> or emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
>
> Those certainly were some fun times.
How about letting those of use who are a little younger in on what used to
happen? :-)
Adam
------------------------------
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 01:40:00 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Which also means there were machines with much shorter uptimes.
What your nicely clipped response fails to show is that yttrx claimed that
it was "not likely" that there were longer uptimes. Of course "mean" also
means that there were less, yet yttrx chooses to put his head in the sand
and think that this number means the maximum uptime somehow. Mig apparently
(from his comments) feels the same.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 18 Jan 2001 08:15:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:13:11 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
>
Wrong. If you read the details on how the test was performed you'd
know there were reboots which were not counted as failures.
>From http://www.nstl.com/downloads/Win2000Reliability.pdf
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:41:21 +0000
Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> 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.
But that *is* the problem. If those fools didn't use NT, then it would
stay up for ever.
-Ed
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
--
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: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:38:31 GMT
In article <9455sv$e65$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> This is also a very, very old article.
The article is dated January 17, 2001 10:44 AM PT
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:35:57 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16168.html
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:40:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Microsoft will destroy itself.
We can but hope.
> Linux will step in, easily, when people wake up an realize the crap they
> have been using for so long.
And then they'll start complaining about the "crap" in Linux!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:45:30 GMT
In article <945rhq$p9k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So you actually have a motivation to make Linux work. Scrapping it and
> installing WinME might get you past the install part, but what good is
> that if, once installed, it doesn't actually do the job you want done?
It gets me 99% there. Unlike the Linux installations which only takes me
60% there.
> But apparently you now managed to install Linux on that machine, with
TCP/IP
> working?
Yep.
> >Pinging revealed neither machine could see each other.
>
> Yes. Great. Now, do you want to find out *why*, or is do you want to go
> to cola and complain loudly? Which course of action is more likely to
> actually get your job done? Which course of action is more likely to be
> useful to society in general?
To figure out "why" I would have to leave the system in a 60% working
state. I chose to use WinME to get me to 99%. It worked, with only one
attempt. Mine reason for pointing this is out is to demonstrate how easy
it is with Windows, and how clumsy it is with Linux.
> >Sorry, but it wasn't a hardware problem. I tried again and it worked.
>
> So doesn't it strike you as ever so slightly odd that the same hardware,
> using the same installer, provided with the same settings, should behave
> differently when you "tried again"? Don't you think it's considerably more
> likely that something was, in fact, different? And as the hardware doesn't
> usually change without user intervention, and the installer is on a
> CD-ROM (where ROM stands for Read Only Memory), and thus can't change....
Yes, the installer has a bug. That's my theory.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:51:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I never said that your needs were unimportant. I'm sure they are to
> you. However, to assume that anyone here in COLA actually cares
> whether or not you can do 'X' as easily in Linux as you can in Windows
> is absurd, especially when that user never bothers to attempt to help
> himself. At that point, one must assume that he is a troll who
> doesn't want to do anything other than use anecdotal evidence to try
> to prove that Linux is somehow inferior to any other OS.
OK, fine, I'll stop complaining, if all the Linux advocates stop telling
me Linux is better than Windows, Linux is great etc.
> Never forget that Linux is above all a charitable effort. When you
> disparage that effort without offering anything in contribution, you
> look selfish.
I'll disparage ANY effort that I find to be inferior compared to a
product that it claims to be better than.
>
> If these things are important to you, do something about it. You know
> C++, and you claim to have experience in GUI development. That's a
> highly valuable commodity that you could use to contribute to the
> improvement of the desktop that you want to be so Windows-like.
>
> Otherwise, stop complaining. We don't care.
As I said, earlier I'll stop complaining. As soon as you guys stop
telling me Linux is so much better than Windows.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:28:04 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From the January 17 SANS NewsBites:
--11 January 2001 NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
A survey posted on Attrition.org ranks Windows NT as the most vulnerable
to crackers, garnering nearly 60% of December defacements. Microsoft
may be targeted because it is so widely known, or because it has a
reputation for hurrying the release of applications, which suggests that
security might take a back seat.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-4449902.html
------------------------------
From: Pablo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Source & security holes
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:59:49 GMT
Great stuff, keep talking, I'm all ears!
/Thanks :o)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:56:56 +1100
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?
Anecdotal evidence here, so YMMV
We have half a dozen or so Linux boxes (mostly just PCs doing light
server
duty)
The PCs have been in for periods ranging from 6 to 18 months. The only
time
any of these boxes have been rebooted is when the power has gone out -
this
is in a 24x7 airconditioned room with a 5KVA UPS, but not a data centre.
We have another Linux box now acting as a backup server (Dell Poweredge
2400
with hardware RAID, RH 4.2). It was originally built to screen-scrape
legacy
data from a CICS domain (~ 10M screens) over a 1MB WAN link, and
brought the
mainframe to its knees a couple of times. We had it down a few times
during
that exercise to shuffle disks around to tweak data throughput. It's
been a
backup server since then, and apart from power outages (dumb sparkies
and
building power failure) has fallen over once when an external SCSI disk failed.
We also have a bunch of SPARC 5 boxes in the same room, with a similar
failure
rate, and an 8-year-old SPARC 10 with an average uptime of around a
year. All
but 2 reboots were caused by power or having to move it - the others the
/usr/local HD failing on one, and thje root disk on another :-(
To be fair, we have 2 NT 4 servers under light but peaky load, which are fairly
stable as well. They *are* less reliable than either the Solaris or
Linux boxes
(probably 2 lockups each in the last year), but have been better than NT's
reputation (and NT4 WS) led me to believe. One of them does suffer from bitrot,
though, and one of the NFS servers we ran on them initially would
invariably cause
a BSOD within a day.
So, my (very unscientific) MTBF, excluding power failure or moves is:
Solaris/SPARC 1 failure / 20 years (2 failure, 1 box @ 8 years,
8 boxes @ 4 years). This is obviously a bit dodgy, as I expect to see a spate
of disk failures after 5 years.
Linux/Intel 1 failure / 5 years (1 failure, 1 box @ 3 years, 6 boxes @
.5 year)
NT 4 Server 2 failures / year (4 failures, 2 boxes @ 2 years)
- excluding NFS server-induced BSODs.
I haven't seen W2K running for any extended periods or in large numbers.
This is purely because we have only sporadically been evaluating W2K,
so I don't have a decent sample.
*** please don't dump on W2K for unreliability based on my observation ***
NOTE: I don't claim this to be scientific or representative. I have seen
SPARC boxes which will panic under load, and Windows 9x PCs run for months.
It would be very interesting to see a large-scale study of MTBF for different
OSen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: 18 Jan 2001 09:52:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Funkenbusch) wrote in
<3iw96.281$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>No "issues" eh?
>
>Let's take file sharing. Setting up your system to share with someone
>else (outside of ftp and such). If that's a Windows machine, you use
>Samba, and configuring this isn't too bad, but way out of reach of the
>average user of today. God forbid they should want to change what they
>share.
That's a good thing. Systems Administrators don't want every idiot luser
sharing his root disk with the world. Having some idea of what you're doing
is a minimum requirement here.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:01:13 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
That's why I cited the rolling averages for uptime, rather than the most
recent uptime.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:59:02 -0600
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16168.html
Yep. With Linux or anything else, you've got to turn off unused
services and install security patches as they come out. As long as
there are bugs in software, there will be people writing scripts to
exploit them.
FWIW, I had installed the wu-ftp fix so long ago that I forgot the
problem had ever existed. "Go thou and do likewise."
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: 18 Jan 2001 10:03:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd) wrote in
<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...
That would be difficult, since Java is language and Windows is an OS.
What you're thinking of is the promise that Java would break Microsoft's
grip on the desktop. That hasn't happened for a number of reasons, some of
them due to Microsoft, some of them due to Sun.
But don't write Java off just yet. It is quietly gaining support on the
server side (where the real multiplatform pay off is) and is already the
number most popular language after C/C++.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:09:38 +1100
ono wrote:
>
> "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "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.
> You mean like a webserver? repeatedly giving out the same stupid pages.
> Running apache is about the only thing that makes sense with linux, there
> are no other things to do there. With the exception of compiling kernels
> maybe. But then again you can't install it without loosing your uptime :-).
>
> 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 ;-).
>
> I know! linux is SOO COOOOL that it doesn't even need a restart when you
> replace the motherboard.
>
Linux might need a shutdown, but Solaris doesn't.
Not if you run a Starfire, anyway :-)
[ snip ]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
