Linux-Advocacy Digest #581, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
"The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux (Geoff Lane)
Re: Poor Linux (Geoff Lane)
Re: Windows curses fast computers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Using Perl to Access DB2 for Linux tutorial ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The real truth about NT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: I just can't help it! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I just can't help it! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I just can't help it! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I just can't help it! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows curses fast computers (.)
Re: I just can't help it! ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:21:29 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:11:53
GMT;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> What's so obsessive about it? It's no different than the various
>> sites out there specifically dedicated to similar tweaks for
>> WinDOS. He probably spent less time setting this up than the
>> average WinNovice takes downloading and installing a single
>> themepack.
>
>The fact that the END USER has taken the time, and effort to perform the
>task of programming to accomplish such an insignifigtant task of rotating
>the desktop background. Seems a tad obsessive.
Actually, it seems a tad efficient. Particularly considering Aaron
could now sell or give this code away, sparing the rest of the user base
from having to be as obsessive.
Software; ain't it a miracle?
--
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
Subject: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:21:30 GMT
Well, here we go.
I've got the "Linux Desktop" on order, from a company listed on
linux.org. Its an 850MHz Athlon with 128 Meg of ram and a 40G ATA 100
drive. CD-writer, printer, Logitech wheel mouse, PCI modem and a cheap
Ethernet card; 19 inch monitor. RedHat 7.0, and I paid the extra bucks
for the Deluxe box.
It should be here next week. I didn't get the dual-boot option, but I
plan to install 95, and maybe NT, once its up and running. So here we
have a real-world comparison, taking into account and reflecting on the
monopoly, pre-load, and ease of installation. The Win-whiners aren't
going to agree, of course, but I think seeing just how easy it is to
install 95 or NT on a box that has Linux preloaded is going to be very
instructive. I've said I'd never build a PC from scratch again, and
would prefer an OEM earned their profit by integrating the system for
me. But in this case, the exact same hardware is supported by the same
vendor as a dual-boot option, (can you believe it? an OEM selling
dual-boot), so I don't think I'm going out on a limb. Plus which, if
Windows for some reason is too much of a hassle to get up, I'll still
have a functional system, so that might help eliminate the 'frustration
and desperation factor' which so badly reflects on the monopoly in the
typical scenario.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: 19 Jan 2001 12:27:13 GMT
In article <#fNLtYJgAHA.272@cpmsnbbsa07>,
"tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In terms of bang
> for bucks AIX did not perform well and was found to be somewhat flaky
> considering its costs.
So the guy that authorised the orginal purchase was fired?
I've found that AIX is spookyly stable. It's one of the few OSs you can
really configure and forget. Extensive use of circular logs is a major win
for unattended servers.
--
/\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\ England /\
We come in peace. Shoot to kill.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: 19 Jan 2001 12:30:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sauosol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It does not truly support the latest hardware and I'm
> afraid never will.
This has little to do with Linux the operating system. If the people
marketing the h/w don't either provide a driver and/or won't release a spec
there is little that can be done in the short term.
--
/\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\ England /\
We come in peace. Shoot to kill.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:28:27 -0600
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Larry R wrote:
> >
> > Gotta love this:
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/517823.asp
>
> I've seen this on AMD 450 MHz machines running 98. This is what happens
> when you take shortcuts. For example, find a faster way to shut down
> all programs when doing a shutdown instead of screwing with
> real/protected mode.
Did you even read the article?
The problem was not "screwing with real/protected mode". The problem was
the computer didn't give the drives (with large caches) enough time to
completely write out their data before shutting down.
Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should hold
enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then park, but
aparently the drive doesn't do this.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Using Perl to Access DB2 for Linux tutorial
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:19:07 GMT
===========================================
In this free, dW-exclusive tutorial you'll learn how to install and use
a Perl interface to the IBM DB2 Universal Database, Personal
Developer's Edition. You'll also learn by example how to query the
sample database provided with the DB2 Personal Developer's Edition.
http://www6.software.ibm.com/reg/devworks/dw-linuxperl-i?
open&l=253,t=gr,p=perldb2
===========================================
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:37:56 -0600
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:979912868.332644@nol...
> >The key word here is SCSI. Most people burn IDE CD-R's (and those are
the
> >ones they burn coasters on when heavy disk activity causes them to get a
> >buffer underrun)
>
> OK, this is quite a late reply, but I had to wait for the opportunity to
> prove you wrong. Here goes.
> I placed an extra disk on *the same* IDE bus as the writer (the
> secondary bus). So I started wrting the CD at 8 speed (iso image is on
> the second disk) and kicked off a kernel compile on that same disk. And
> even though these things don't take that long on a PIII 650, I thought
> I'll pass my time with a game of FreeCell. No, not the Gnome Freecell,
> but the Native Win'98 Freecell in a VMWare session. The Win 98 disk is
> a virual disk image on, again, the second disk.
> A screendump (96kB) of this process can be viewed at:
I think most people that have had problems with burns under 9x or NT have
had much slower computers.
I can't match your test right now for 3 reasons. 1) I have an old Yamaha
CDR-100 4x4 CD-R (4 years old and still going strong) with a very small
internal cache (512K). Most modern burners have 1-2MB internal caches,
which greatly reduces risk of buffer underruns. and 2) It's SCSI and 3) I
don't have it hooked up right now.
Even with such an antiquated burner with such high risk of failure, I
haven't burned a coaster since my P133 days on 95.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:33:20 GMT
Said Nigel Feltham in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:07:47
>>Sure enough, mean time to failure (MTTF) tests for 98, NT and 2k
show,among
>>other things, that the heavily-sold consumer OS is hopelessly buggy and in
>>fact eager to crash.
>
>Some countries have consumer protection rules to stop companies sellingfaulty goods.
>Does this mean that everyone who has ever bought a MS operating system canclaim
>refunds under their own country's consumer protection rules - if a companysells for
>example a washine macine or TV which regularly breaks down the customer isoften
>entitled to compensation as well as full refund (lost time due to softwarefailure
>could
>be a cause for compensation). I think all windows users should get togetheand take
>MS to court for knowingly selling faulty goods for the past 10 or more years(MS versus
>over 100 million users should make an interesting case).
Well, the applicability of 'foreign' laws depends on the country in
question, but your supposition seems reasonable. However, within the
United States, whether a consumer has any protection at all depends on
under which state's laws the *license agreement* was written, not where
the consumer or the producer is or where the item was purchased.
And at least some software vendors are now drafting their license
agreements under Maryland state law, I believe, because it allows them
to reject any and all consumer protections, when the product being
purchased is called "software".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:32:37 -0000
kiwiunixman wrote in message <3a67be20$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>why do they call you flatfish?
Because he's smelly, oily and his arguments fall flat
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:43:18 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A company that shuts down it's PC's at night can save millions in
> > electricity bills.
>
> The time it takes to start up a system, especially Win2K, probably costs
> more in productivity than the electricity a computer uses over night.
Most of the companies i've worked in, here's how the average person begins
their day. They first go to their desk, and power up their computer. They
take off their coat, and possibly remove things like overshoes or switch
their boots (I live in the north) for regular shoes. Then they march down
to the cafeteria and get coffee, and if they smoke, smoke a cigarette.
Usually conversing with friends who are also doing this. Then they wander
back to their cubes and arrange their desk for their work day, and then turn
to log onto their computer, which has been sitting idle for the last 15
minutes.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:48:39 -0600
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A company that shuts down it's PC's at night can save millions in
> > electricity bills.
>
> Maybe the mom and pop store that has on PC in the back for inventory
> might be better served by shutting down, but a large company? Are you
> serious? The time lost in productivity waiting for all the
> workstations to cycle back up is by _far_ greater than the few
> dollars saved in electricity. Although with Windows workstations
> this might be valid. The time lost in productivity due to Windows
> crashes certainly might be greater than the time to power up. That
> might make daily reboots worth it. That's an indictment of Windows,
> however.
See my response to mlw. Productivity in most companies is not hinged on how
long a computer takes to boot. They spend more time in meetings, on coffee
and cigarette breaks, talking with other co-workers, etc.
> Where exactly do you work, anyway?
I've worked in many places, including fortune 500 companies. GE, GM, Ford,
Ingersol-Rand, Half a dozen large banking institutions, HMO's, Insurance
industries, not to mention 100-500 person companies (of which the majority
of US employees are employed at).
As a contractor and consultant I see a lot of different companies.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:50:12 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > A company that shuts down it's PC's at night can save millions in
> > electricity bills.
>
> And pay millions MORE in monitor replacement costs.
>
> Clue for the clueless: The most destructive thing you can do to a
> computer system (especially monitors) is to power them off every night.
>
> Power-cycles are hard on electrical systems, ESPECIALLY motors and
> vacuum tubes (like monitor screens).
Hahaha... I love how you guys contradict yourselves. mlw says "Most people
just shut of their monitors at night", and you claim shutting off the
monitors will cause millions in monitor replacement costs.
Here's another clue. Power management also shuts off monitors.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:51:27 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You keep saying this, but I doubt that it is true. I see many people
> > just turn off their monitors when they go home.
>
> They shouldn't even do that.
>
> when the monitor goes to power saving mode, it only consumes a couple
> of watts...just enough to keep the tube warm so that "turning on" to
> display again doesn't add yet another thermal-shock cycle.
That's stand-by mode. There's also Sleep mode, which turns off the monitor
almost completely (including the tube circuitry).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:52:49 -0600
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Did I read this correctly?
> >>> Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
> >>> NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
> >>> Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
> >
> >[snipped: The Register's article]
> >
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average desktop
*IS*
> >> shutdown at night.
>
> Not in large corporations it isn't. How are software updates rolled
> out??
Never heard of wake-on-lan?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:54:38 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:949plq$ke0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yea, that's something to remember. He can upgrade his graphics card
> drivers without rebooting or stopping whatever else he's doing.
Unless of course "what he's doing" is GUI related, such as working on a word
processing document, spreadsheet, or database.
For most end-users, all they work with is GUI apps, so what's the
difference?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: 19 Jan 2001 21:52:52 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Larry R wrote:
>> >
>> > Gotta love this:
>> >
>> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/517823.asp
>>
>> I've seen this on AMD 450 MHz machines running 98. This is what happens
>> when you take shortcuts. For example, find a faster way to shut down
>> all programs when doing a shutdown instead of screwing with
>> real/protected mode.
> Did you even read the article?
> The problem was not "screwing with real/protected mode". The problem was
> the computer didn't give the drives (with large caches) enough time to
> completely write out their data before shutting down.
OHHHH....Its the COMPUTERS FAULT FOR BEING TOO FAST.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I'm sure everyone will be willing to slow down their hardware so that windows
wont break anymore.
No, really.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:50:12 -0000
>Having servers and desktops capable of mean uptimes in excess 120 days
>is somewhat analogous to having high definition television beyond that
>which the human eye can resolve. It is simply something the vast
>majority of the market doesn't need in order to carry out their
>business activities.
>
Guess you didn't read the full article - it stated an average of one
unscheduled
reboot every 120 days. The machines were shut down every night (only windows
users would ignore nightly shutdowns when measuring uptime). It also ignored
the times when users manually rebooted the machines due to operating system
failures (GPF's, IPF's and any bluescreens which didn't result in automatic
reboots)
which hardly makes these figures accurate. If these machines had been left
on
continuously, assuming an 8 hour day then you can devide these figures by 3
for
24 hour use. Add to this any memory leak problems (or which MS operating
systems
have many known problems) which were removed by the nightly shutdowns and
manual
reboots.
Now which is most reliable, win2k with an uptime of 120 days when shutting
down
each night or linux uptime of over 120 days continuous?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:02:31 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:949quf$ljt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <kvl96.136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average
> desktop *IS*
> > shutdown at night.
>
> This is an artifact of the historical unreliability of MS operating
> systems. Unix/Linux workstations are never shutdown at night.
Tell that to your average "save the world" do gooder that insists on turning
everything off to save the ecology. So called "green PC's" were invented to
help shut these people up.
> > > Well, there you have it, plain and simple. A study, funded by
> Microsoft,
> > > that proves that while 2K is better than NT, it still sucks.
> >
> > 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).
>
> NO
> And I repeat NO NO NO
> They were not counting "unplannned reboot" they were counting "abnormal
> shutdown". Read the study (which is woefully short on details). So if
> the whole system has gone to hell (barely responsive, short on
> resources, etc.) and you reboot "voluntarily" before it completely
> freezes/bsods on you, this counts as a "normal shutdown" and doesn't
> count against the reliability numbers.
And you're still ignoring the fact that they used *BETA* versions of the OS.
Several beta versions, some of which were known to be unstable.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:07:24 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:21:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:11:53
>GMT;
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> What's so obsessive about it? It's no different than the various
>>> sites out there specifically dedicated to similar tweaks for
>>> WinDOS. He probably spent less time setting this up than the
>>> average WinNovice takes downloading and installing a single
>>> themepack.
>>
>>The fact that the END USER has taken the time, and effort to perform the
>>task of programming to accomplish such an insignifigtant task of rotating
>>the desktop background. Seems a tad obsessive.
Now I could cut/paste it from here and use it to my hearts
content without any extra work. Furthermore, the task in
question really isn't any serious programming work. All
he did was commit a few sequential steps to a file.
OTOH, if this were some complex manual process he could have
saved a remarkable amount of time by doing something as simple
as commiting a few simple steps to a text file.
This is the handy part about an end user interface that is
intended for scripting. You only really need do somethign
once and then forget about it.
The real issue here is one of having an enlightened notion
of one's self-interest. Quite often apparent losses in the
short-term will lead to larger gains in the long term.
Sure, emacs might be 'nasty' or 'hard' but I've been using
it for 10 years with no liklihood that I will need to
change to something else.
>
>Actually, it seems a tad efficient. Particularly considering Aaron
>could now sell or give this code away, sparing the rest of the user base
>from having to be as obsessive.
>
>Software; ain't it a miracle?
Pay now or pay later.
Quite often it is ultimately cheaper to 'pay' sooner.
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
