Linux-Advocacy Digest #588, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (.)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Shane Phelps)
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? (Bones)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Bones)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Edward Rosten)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:16:40 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:46:37 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
> >
> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> > Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly
unscientific
> >> > misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is
counted
> >> > as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
> >>
> >> Websites are websites, and should be counted as such.
> >
> >Right. 500 "My Cat Fluffy" websites vs 500 e-Commerce Fortune 500
> >company web sites means the same thing.
>
> Please provide proof of this statement.
> From my experience, most "My Cat Fluffy" sites are hosted
> on places like geocities and homestead and places
> like that because people generally don't want to
> pay money to host something so inane.
>
> Having worked at an ISP before, I can say that there
> are more then a few virtual sites on large boxes that
> are typical small AND mid sized business. Given,
> most large businesses go with dedicated machines,
> however, this isn't always the case. Also, what's
> worth considering is the number of the eCommerce Fortune
> 500 systems that are using server farms to handle the
> load. I suppose if each of those were counted, that
> would help the MS count ;)
>
> >Well, if you look at it, IIS has the lead (or iPlanet according
> >to some lists) in the business sector which gets much more traffic
> >than the "My Cat Fluffy" web sites which Apache seems to have the
> >stronghold in.
>
> Please back up your claim for the number of "My Cat Fluffy" sites
> other then your say so. Small and medium size businesses are
> still business sites. And please, give a reputable source
> of information on this.
>
> >> The crux of your complaint is this:
> >>
> >> Many windows pc servers are combined to power a single
> >> website, while a single Unix server is capable of powering
> >> many websites
> >
> >Many low-traffic low-visit web sites. IIS can do this to, but
> >it's typically not used for that because you're wasting a lot
> >of power of IIS by using it on these low-traffic web sites.
> >
> >However, Apache is perfect for this.
>
> Please provide further information about IIS hosting
> thousands of sites on a single machine. While it might
> be a "waste" of IIS power, however, I'm sure it would
> be in a hosting facility's best interests to do this,
> since people would gladly pay a decent monthly fee
> to do this. By stating that IIS can host "many" (we'll
> set a nice low minimum of 300 virtual hosts), please
> provide some information on where this is being done.
>
> I look forward to hearing some further statistics on
> this from you, as I'm genuiunely curious on this.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/iis/shsover.asp
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:58:54 GMT
Said kiwiunixman in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:03:38
[...]
>2K wins the competition hands down with a respectable MTTF of 2893 hours
>(actually sounds like a professional product, doesn't it). NT showed
>considerable anaemia, struggling for an MTTF of 919 hours, while the crap OS
>most of you are using as you read this article, Win9x, exhibited a
>predictable, consumer-schlock MTTF of only 216 hours.
>
>---If I were a OS vendor I would be very ashamed of that uptime! if the
>uptime was, say, 10 months, YES, jump around and celebrate..however...most
>commercial UNIX's and Linux achieve 2893 with out too much effort.
If you were an OS vendor, you'd be out of business with that uptime! It
takes a monopolist to keep stuff like that in use.
[...]
>The '9x code base was crap to begin with, and crap it remains. But no one
>can accuse us of MS-bashing here; the company's own ad campaign makes
>precisely that assertion.
>
>---hmmmm, the number of people I know who find Windows 95 more stable that
>98 is numorous.
I would think it would be "all of them". Win98 was certainly a pathetic
joke, even aside from being little more than Win95 with IE bolted on.
And if Win9x is crap, why is it Microsoft is being forced to eliminate
all discount schedules, and threaten to stop production entirely,
because the consumers are resisting moving to W2K?
Guffaw.
--
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 23:53:18 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:21:11
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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?
>
>Why not?
Because no Windows OS has ever been able to handle stuff like this well
at all. Perhaps you just don't notice it. That web server may run just
fine while playing a DirectX game, but I wouldn't want to be in a
deathmatch when anyone's actually retrieving any web pages. It isn't a
matter of network congestion, its just that Windows hasn't ever been
able to handle I/O very well in this regard. Video or audio breaks up
when the network is being used, and don't even try to format a floppy or
do a big disk copy. Its gotten much better at this, of course, over the
years; every version of Windows is a great improvement in this regard.
Of course, if it weren't a crappy OS to begin with, it would be like
Linux, which has never had this problem to begin with. Sure, the system
will slow down when you're doing intensive I/O stuff, but it doesn't get
choppy and start stuttering. Nor does it fall over, like Windows, on
occasion.
--
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: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:25:22 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Linux is not at all at fault in this scenario. You have issues with the
>> > > limitations of one filesystem. Exactly like the limitations of FAT or
>> > > NTFS (I know NTFS can handle larger files than ext2, but that doesn't
>> > > mean it doesn't have its limits).
>> >
>> > The only real limitation of NTFS I'm aware of is slow new-file creation when
>> > dealing with orders of tens of millions of files.
>>
>> There are limitations on file sizes and numbers, as there must be...
>> luckily, the max filesize with NTFS is huge, but it wont be long before
>> people are hitting that limit too (if they haven't already).
>
>16 Exabytes ???
>16 billion Giga byte.
>
>I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that size.
Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
And they were really sure *they* were right, too. ;-)
--
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: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:12:19 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:36:24 -0500;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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?
>
>Easily. [...]
.
The question is can it do it *at all*. I already know it can't do it
'easily', as every Windows computer I've ever seen has been unable of
keeping up with two I/O streams adequately to prevent the breaking up
from being noticable.
Since you want to pretend this is trivial, rather than a long standing
problem, you're probably one of those who would report that Win3.1 could
do this (better than Win3.0) and Win95 could do this (better than
Win3.1) and NT could do this (better than WinDOS) and NT4 SP6 can do
this (better than WinNT), so it would be apparent that you don't
understand what the problem is, as none of these have ever been able to
do it.
So I guess I can presume that W2K still can't do it. Not surprising,
really; Microsoft never has gotten even simple multi-tasking right.
--
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: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:21:40 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
04:02:11 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-201-4508359-0.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.sf
>>
>> What's interesting is that this report proves one thing beyond a doubt:
>> Linux use is growing rapidly. To have sufficient population density
>> that a purposefully selective worm can propagate enough to be such a
>> large problem means that everything Funkenbusch trolls on and on about
>> how Microsoft's trouble's can all be hand-waved away as results of
>> 'popularity' are now moot.
>>
>> Linux's first media-reported worm. What a cool thing. (Kind of ironic,
>> since the patches to prevent the exploits used by the virus are already
>> available, given the claims by the sock puppets that Microsoft is so
>> quick to fix the excessive number of security holes found in Windows,
>> et. al,.)
>
>Given a few months experience with Linux, one should realize that
>running rpc.statd and wu-ftp is not generally a good thing.
>Been there, been hacked.
It does sound like RedHat should be more careful that their default
install does not expose end users.
To play the Microsoft apologist for a moment, the fact is that a
'typical user' is not going to know right away when they've been hacked.
This would be a *major* nightmare for RedHat, and people *would*
potentially turn away from not just RedHat, but Linux as a whole, if
they get burned this way.
--
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: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:28:21 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 19 Jan 2001 18:27:25 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: - Import the video from firewire (usually 3:1 or 5:1 with good capture
>: cards)
>: - Load the video into Premiere or whatever app they're using for editing
>: - Save raw video file for posterity.
>: - Perform edits, insert audio, stills, etc
>: - Save edits to video file
>: - Resize video to internet video size (192x144)
>
>Alarm bells went off when I read this. How long is this video that
>it takes 2 GB at 192x144 size?? Does the video last all day?
Its most probably like this:
The production company gets a post-production video tape. Their task is
to produce a number of short, small 'clips' that will be presented as
'web video' on some web site. (Probably ASF format. Guffaw.) Reduced
size and resolution, etc, would result, but the input data is still in a
>2Gig file.
Anyway, so what the production company did was read the entire video
tape from beginning to end into one huge video file, multiple gigabytes.
Now, the question of why they would do something this brain-dead is
being pointedly ignored by Chad, but that merely leads us to wonder
whether he was the one who decided to do it that way. The fact that he
uses the 2Gig file limit in older Linux systems as a 'justification', as
if otherwise he was honestly seeking to avoid monopoly crapware, does
not contradict this, one way or the other, but it does provide support
for the theory that Chad is merely using this as an excuse, and a rather
lame one, for supporting One Microsoft Way.
Eventually, without all the second-guessing of Chad or anyone else, it
all comes down to the fact that yes, consumers are harmed when there are
not competitive alternatives widely available. Every time Chad comes up
with some other example showing a scenario where Linux cannot be easily
dropped in to replace Win32 crapware, he furthers the justification and
the importance of the government's breakup of Microsoft.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Date: 19 Jan 2001 14:51:50 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Seriously, Winvocates have zero credibility left. If Microsoft can't
> > get NT to stay up on average better than 38 days, how are we expected
> > to believe all these claims that have been made over the last few
> > years about NT staying up indefinately? How are we expected to
> > believe the current claims made about W2K?
>
> Microsoft did not conduct the study. Why do you people always distort the
> truth?
True, but do you honestly doubt they had nothing to do with the
results? They paid for the study, and no study can be released
without the prior consent of Microsoft. Microsoft may not have
conducted the study, but they certainly had something to do with the
results.
--
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]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: 19 Jan 2001 22:29:28 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94acvk$a9d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
> No, actually.. the drive was too slow, and didn't provide enough capacitance
> to deal with it.
>> Thanks for clearing that up.
>>
>> I'm sure everyone will be willing to slow down their hardware so that
> windows
>> wont break anymore.
> Let me ask you a question. How long is WIndows supposed to wait? Suppose
> IBM introduces a new drive with a 10GB buffer in it. It takes 10 minutes to
> flush the buffer to disk. How long is Windows supposed to wait before
> shutting down? The drive provides no way for the OS to know when the buffer
> is fully flushed, so what is the OS supposed to do?
Bullshit. BULL SHIT.
Why is it that that very same ibm drive can be slammed into a sun machine and
tested by the operating system for buffer times?
And then the results of that test can be written to a handy dandy little file
that controls exactly what the machine does when pulls itself out of IDE (or
scsi, or anything else) and how fast it does it.
The fact is, Windows cannot do this. Windows is at fault here, not IBM.
Hardware should *never* be made to software specs, dingleberry.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:41:03 +1100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:949quf$ljt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[ snip ]
> >
> > 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.
It's actually quite interesting that they were using W2K betas.
That indicates to me that the survey was done about a year ago.
Anything done from Feb 2000 should've used the production release.
They *were* production releases of NT 4 and W98, though
- sorry, couldn't resist that one ;-)
FWIW, I find NT 4 to be more reliable that they quote, and W98 less.
I have a vague recollection (which may just be my memory playing up)
that I saw ads around the time of W2K's release which claimed W2K's
uptime was around 4x NT4 and 13x W98's. I *think* it was in the Australian
version of Windows NT magazine (before it changed it's name to Windows 2000)
but I can't find those issues - I probably left them at work.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:43:16 GMT
> Aaron Ginn wrote:
[snip]
> Seriously, Winvocates have zero credibility left. If Microsoft can't
> get NT to stay up on average better than 38 days, how are we expected
> to believe all these claims...
Well, to be fair, Microsoft had nothing to do with the report other than
asking it be done. And it isn't apparent from NSTL's report that any type of
configuration was dictated to the academic and private institutions who
participated in the test.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:43:17 GMT
> Nick Condon wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Nothing is virus proof, as long as people can write programs for it.
> My calculator is programmable. Write a virus for that.
So is your VCR; write a virus for that.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word 'program' as computer
engineers had intended it to be used. The confusion seems to stem from your
accepting the misuse of the word 'program' by marketoids with no
understanding of what all these terms mean. You calulator, as supplied to
you, can be customizable, configurable and may even have its own interpreted
scripting language.
Someone with a schematic of your calculator as well as a reference guide
about the processor that is in it will more than likely be able to write a
virus for it. Whether its possible to store the program in the calculator's
memory and execute it is a another matter. But given enough time, I'm sure its
possible.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:37:17 -0600
Salvador Peralta wrote:
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > There's one plus to being an NT admin, as I see it. Job security. You're
> > almost always needed! You're the most important member of the IT team!
> > Without your constant dicking and clicking, the network won't stay up!
>
> Sure, but what happens when your users figure out that you are fixing
> all system errors with a reboot and start rebooting all by themselves?
Tell them your union rules don't allow it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:42:25 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Based on nubers from Netcraft and Uptimes I would find this claim hard
> > to believe. Just guessing without documentation to back it up is hardly
> > being realistic.
>
> Really? Why don't you list every Linux system listed in Netcrafts database
> and give the average uptime of all of them combined.
>
> I'll bet you it'll be a lot worse than the MTTF listed in this report.
>
> Provide the statistics, since you claim to have them.
I have already posted a semi-random selection of uptimes from Netcraft, mostly
including sites run by the software's own vendors. Linux beat W2K by over
4:1.
Nor did W2K come anywhere near the MTTF claimed by the MS-funded report.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:47:16 +0000
JS PL wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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?
>
> Easily. I just built a system last week. And it played an mp3 perfectly
> while simultaneously copying 600mb worth of other mp3's from the cd drive to
> a folder AND installing office 2000 from the other cd drive. Didn't skip a
> beat. It was probably "accessing" the internet too, I forget.
Woo, hoo. My computer can do pretty much that:
Make an ISO image and pipe directly to a CD writer at 8x
(I only have 1cd drive so I cant compete with the installing thing)
Play MP3s just fine.
Download big files.
And its only a P133, but it runs linux. What exactly is the spec of your
computer. Its probably several times faster at least.
-Ed
-Ed
--
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: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:28:59 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:21:11
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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?
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Because no Windows OS has ever been able to handle stuff like this well
> at all. Perhaps you just don't notice it. That web server may run just
> fine while playing a DirectX game, but I wouldn't want to be in a
> deathmatch when anyone's actually retrieving any web pages. It isn't a
> matter of network congestion, its just that Windows hasn't ever been
> able to handle I/O very well in this regard. Video or audio breaks up
> when the network is being used, and don't even try to format a floppy or
> do a big disk copy. Its gotten much better at this, of course, over the
> years; every version of Windows is a great improvement in this regard.
In the last couple of days I've been doing some very HDs intensive tasks.
Plug HD in, check if it has interesting files, copy them to my own HD,
format, scan for bad clusters, pull HD out, keep doing so until you run out
of HDs.
I didn't notice any major slow down in my normal activities.
Yes, the system was noticedbly slow (especially when formatting to NTFS on
dynamic disks), but the computer kept on with all the normal tasks, and
everything that I do routinely without it being anything like the major
slowdown that you describe.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:44:11 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Linux is not at all at fault in this scenario. You have issues
with the
> >> > > limitations of one filesystem. Exactly like the limitations of FAT
or
> >> > > NTFS (I know NTFS can handle larger files than ext2, but that
doesn't
> >> > > mean it doesn't have its limits).
> >> >
> >> > The only real limitation of NTFS I'm aware of is slow new-file
creation when
> >> > dealing with orders of tens of millions of files.
> >>
> >> There are limitations on file sizes and numbers, as there must be...
> >> luckily, the max filesize with NTFS is huge, but it wont be long before
> >> people are hitting that limit too (if they haven't already).
> >
> >16 Exabytes ???
> >16 billion Giga byte.
> >
> >I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that
size.
>
> Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
>
> And they were really sure *they* were right, too. ;-)
Difference is in the size.
And the 2GB limit in what exactly? FAT has it (actually, it's a partition
limit, but that is beside the point) but it's justifiable, FAT was designed
in the 70s.
Linux on 32bit has(d) it, it's not justifiable, because need for such files
exist for a long time, I can assure you that there was no need for 2GB files
in the 70s, when FAT was designed.
NTFS was designed in the late 80s, currently the only limitation you would
encounter with file size & partition size is hardware related, not software
related..
It will be a long time before you would meet TBs files, hell, even GBs
files are rare, Exabyte files are neither being used (or even close to being
needed to be used, by a factor of six at the very least) nor are going to be
used in the near.
In 5 years we might see TBs disks become common, I still doubt that anyone
would need a TBs file for *anything*, and Exabyte files is simply ridicilus,
even if you look further into the future, say 20 - 30 years ahead.
In conclustion, any file size limitation in NTFS is purely theoretical.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
