Linux-Advocacy Digest #586, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:32 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Jan 2001 20:15:38
[...]
>Then again - thinking about it... ok, so what? Say SWC is some mysterious
>here-to-unknown product MS has that no one has noticed until it went
>head-to-head with the linux kernel mode webserver and THEN, desperate for
>answers why linux only was a scant 2.7% faster the zealots had to go digging
>for some exuse. Amazing that no one else has noticed this interesting
>product that can do such miraculous performance and is tucked into the
>kernel yet multi-million dollar players have simply "missed" it - whoops,
>just like that. But mcnash spots it by his own mind-reading interpretation
>of the source code to a benchmark.
Guffaw. Damn right its amazing. Amazing that after getting completely
shredded in the benchmark several months ago, beaten by an open source
server capable of (but not) running in kernel mode, Microsoft suddenly
has 3.0 of a product nobody'd ever heard of before, which is a kernel
mode server which almost manages to catch up to Linux. Well,
interesting, anyway, maybe not really amazing.
To be honest, if I owned TUX, I'd be getting a court order to see
Microsoft's SWC source code. There is precedent for recognizing
'copying by derivation' using the 'negative knowledge'* principle.
Nevertheless, the fact remains MS had to put in an optimized,
benchmark-only, beta, kernal-level web cache/server, in order to
approximate Tux's results. Hell, maybe the 'missing' 2.7% is that time
it takes IIS to 'generate' the dynamic web pages that SWC *serves*.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
*This isn't as fruity as it sounds. An engineer reading the
specifications for how another engineer has solved a problem gains
knowledge by thereby knowing what *won't* work to solve the problem,
even if he does not implement an identical method to the original
engineer. His work can be considered derivative of the protected work,
particularly if it is similar in any substantial way, even if it isn't a
'copy'.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:30 GMT
Said Conrad Rutherford in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 12 Jan 2001 14:29:11
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 11 Jan 2001 19:16:39 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >SWC is not a web server. Get it through your head!
>> >
>> >AND, remember, Tux beat windows by a whopping 2.7% - woo hoo!!! A whole
>2.7%
>> >and they had to go into kernel space to do it.
>> >
>> >I have never seen Tux in production, IIS (and SWC) is out there.
>>
>> Where?
>>
>
>How would you expect me to SHOW you the proof that SWC is out there?
>Netcraft doesn't report it so...? It's being sold and is being currently
>developed and upgraded - it's like asking for proof bic lighters are in
>use - where's the URL for that?
We don't need an url; we can see bic lighters in stores and in people's
hands. You say that people are using SWC. Find us a person, or some
other evidence that this is the case, in contradiction to Microsoft's
own statements. Its a simple request, I think. Not necessarily a
simple task, of course. One might even consider it somewhat Herculean.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:39 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 13 Jan 2001
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matt Soltysiak
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:00:46 GMT
>> <2Ww66.114530$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
>> >enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
>> >Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
>> >
>> >
>> >Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
>> >operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years.
>It's
>> >amazing.
>> >Here are some of the common failures:
>>
>> [failures snipped -- most of them lockups]
>>
>> Have you checked your power supply? :-)
>
>That's an interesting point. Many times, the Windows drivers will enable
>accelerated or other functionality that the basic Linux drivers don't,
>causing them to use more power than they would otherwise and stressing the
>power supply more.
Oh, Puh-Leeze. No, its just a computer with a flaky power supply locks
up more. A computer with Windows also locks up more. There's no "pass"
for Windows locking up on lots of hardware, most of which don't have
flaky power supplies, just because you can't tell the difference on any
one machine without replacing the power supply or the OS.
"Windows drivers cause more power use because of their extra
'acceleration' and more functionality than the 'basic' Linux drivers!"
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:33 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 14 Jan 2001 21:07:10
>I cannot say with 100% certainty if SWC is or is not running in kernel mode.
>I just don't know that certain. But what I do know is that, yes, IIS was
>generating the content. SWC may have served up cached copies later but the
>original content came from IIS.
But a web server benchmark measures the *serving* of the pages, not
their 'generation'. You'd have to know not just the fact that 30% of
the web requests are for dynamic pages, but what the content of those
pages were, for the benchmark to be meaningful, otherwise. The
'original content' came from a disk data store, however you slice it.
The fact remains, SWC was doing the 'serving', even if IIS, whatever
that is, is 'generating content'.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:35 GMT
Said Adam Warner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:04:07
[...]
>Check out the statement here:
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/serverappliance/webserver/overview.asp
>
>---Begin Quote---
>
>Industry-Leading Hosting Performance
>
>Based on SPECWeb 99, the leading benchmark for Web server performance, Web
>Server Appliances powered by Windows 2000 deliver significantly greater
>hosting capacity than alternative Web server solutions. Recent SpecWeb test
>results showed single-processor machines built on Windows 2000 handled 75%
>more simultaneous connections than servers on non-Windows platforms.
>
>---End Quote---
Is there anyone left in the industry (besides sock puppets) who is naive
enough to believe something like that?
--
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.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:44 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> You haven't a clue of the subject as a whole. Then again, neither does
>> >> Roberto; he trumpets KDE because he's a big fan who stands to profit
>> >> from the deal.
>> >
>> >Excuse me, but are you saying I don't have a clue about the subject of
>> >linux desktops?
>>
>> No, I'm saying you don't have a clue about why KDE is a worthless
>> piece of shit unless there are other [interoperable and compatible]
>> replacements for it.
>
>Indeed, I have no clue about that, since it seems false to me.
>If something is only worthy and unlike shit if it can be replaced,
>then innovation is the production of worthless shit. Seems stupid
>to me, but then again, it's you who is saying it, so that should
>not be surprising.
Actually, it was a very astute and true way of putting it. Indeed,
"innovation" is "the production of worthless shit". Lots of it.
Because some of it turns out not to be as worthless as the rest. So you
keep that, and then you just start piling on more worthless shit, hoping
it happens again.
Technology development through free market capitalism, biological
evolution, scientific and philosophical investigation.... it all works
pretty much the same.
You have correctly identified the logical ramification of this principle
in market terms. Just as a scientific theory which cannot be proved
false by any experiment because it is unfalsifiable is not a scientific
theory, a product is only "worthy and unlike shit" if it can be
replaced. The extension of this principle to biological evolution is
left as an exercise for the reader.
[...]
>> That's what I said; you stand to profit on the deal (the widespread
>> adoption of KDE.)
>
>You said much more than that, but hey, you are an idiot.
Well, gee, Roberto, that would make you a moron, since I know I'm
smarter than you are. I think that makes Clair/flathead an imbecile.
>> And I know you'd be the first to point out that
>> nobody can possibly be unbiased and objective, so you won't even try.
>
>Since I don't expect anyone to be unbiased, everyone's opinion is worth
>something.
Well, unless you know how to tell when someone's opinion is more or less
unbiased, and therefor recognize that some are unbiased in comparison to
others, you can't possibly get any "worth" from anyone's opinion. Most
of all, your own, of course.
>> Therefore, your opinion on KDE versus anything else is pretty much
>> worthless.
>
>Actually, my biased opinion about KDE, compared with someone else's
>biased opinion about KDE and alternatives, is pretty much as valuable
>as opinions get in this matter.
I'm afraid that doesn't follow from your previous statement. It does,
however, confirm my supposition that you are, in fact, incapable of
being unbiased to any degree at all, making your opinion worthless.
>> Nothing personal.
>
>You do have a personal problem. Of the mental persuasion.
Ah, to hell with you. I was being perfectly civil, and actually
engaging in conversation. But as soon as I say something you don't
agree with, you turn back into a pigheaded moron.
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>No problem.
Fuck you.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:29:26 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:54:25
[...]
>Who knows how many back doors are in OpenSource software. It took them
>6 months just to find this one in this product. There are thousands
>in Linux that they're finding all the time.
Lie.
>I would think that a product that was DEVELOPED under Open Source should
>have most of the security related bugs flushed out during all this
>extensive peer review you indoctrinate us with continuously.
They do, which is why it took 6 months after it was opened (after years
of being closed and the back door going unnoticed, as far as we know
<and that's a very grave caveat when discussing back doors>), I would
expect.
--
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.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:51:11 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:38:26
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >The market makes no judgement upon itself, it is the consumer who decides.
>>
>> ...decides? decides what?
>
>Decides what is popular, acceptable, "defacto", "norm". Come on, is it
>really THIS hard to comprehend?
Boy, did you step in it there, Kyle. How can the consumer determine
"the norm". The only thing they can do is determine their choice. You
need to take the result of many different consumers, a "market", in
fact, in order to determine what is 'popular', or 'de facto', or 'the
norm'. A free market.
>> In the case of WinDOS, the consumer merely decided to either
>> use what they thought everyone else was using or use what
>> was placed in front of them.
>
>And in the case of Apple?
Apple makes computers. Microsoft doesn't. Obviously, they serve
different markets.
>I have no doubt that Windows 95, 98 & Me's
>popularity was derived from Microsoft's MSDOS popularity, but it was popular
>for a reason.
Yea; its called a per-processor licensing agreement. It illegally locks
OEMs into providing the perpetrator with monopoly power, as long as they
start with market power. Where they got the market power is beside the
point, but it mostly has to do with overselling shoddy goods.
>More popular than IBM DOS was, and Windows 95 was WAY more
>popular than OS/2 Warp was, despite the dual marketing blitz.
IBM DOS, which was PC-DOS, BTW, was just a relabeled MS-DOS, with some
of the executables replaced. And Windows 95 was a monopoly, so despite
any "market blitz", Microsoft prevented OS/2 Warp from competing on
merits.
[...]
>> This "gotta be DOS compatible" meme was entrenched by 1988.
>
>I don't agree with this point. In 1988, the average PC user knew way more
>about their PC's then they do today.
No, the typical person new way more, because they were more likely to
have a good deal of expertise, since there were fewer users. The
average PC user was probably about the same. Which just goes to show
how disfunctional the market has been.
>Windows has made this possible.
Prove it.
>MS-DOS & Windows 1, & 2still did not. Windows 3 didn't either, but 3.1
>began to make headway. Some might argue this is because more people were
>interested in PC's, and the idea that it's not as diffucult as "C:\>"
>anymore.
Some might argue that DOS, and pre-3.1 Windows, simply sucked much worse
than Windows 3.1, which still sucked, but not so much Microsoft couldn't
use their monopoly power to force the public to accept it.
[...]
>> >> >Linux has no quality software.
>
>> >> You have yet to demonstrate that in even the vaguest manner.
>
>> >Haven't I? Aside from you people in COLA, who the hell is running Linux
>on
>>
>> Not in the slightest.
>
>Ok, fine. Never mind then.
So you'll stop claiming Linux has no quality software?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:49:35 GMT
Said Stephen Cornell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 16 Jan 2001 12:58:01
[...]
>It makes no economic sense for most companies to put SO on their
>desktops, knowing that, each time a user is sent a MS Office document,
>they will waste an hour trying to find a way of reading that document
>as the author intended.
A bit of FUD, Stephen? "As the author intended" indeed; that smells
like Microsoft's 'integrity of the presentation' bullshit. You can read
Office documents in StarOffice. You pretty much just open them up like
any other file, I believe. Of course the translation isn't perfect;
these are Microsoft formats we're talking about here.
>Ironically, the way that MS established itself as the market leader on
>the desktop is by producing an operating system that was good enough
>for most users while being cheaper than the (superior) alternatives.
That isn't so much 'ironic' as it is 'false'. They became a monopoly by
monopolizing. Its illegal, and its soon going to be remedied. My
impatience is reflected, obviously, by the frequency with which I have
the urge to post to knock down fabrications like this.
>It's well documented that MS's tactic for maintaining its market
>position is by `embracing and extending' foreign technologies, so that
>at each step the most economically viable alternative for each user is
>to stay within the MS fold. It's a *locally* stable strategy (in the
>game-theoretic sense). This doesn't mean that what results is the
>best *global* alternative for customers.
Economics isn't game theory. There is no "best global alternative" for
customers. Misrepresentations of "the network effect" aside, the real
world truth is that the best strategy for customers is a non-global one.
And there needs to be alternatives (commercially available substitutes,
ie, not a monopoly) for even that to be possible.
>Given a big enough
>perturbation in the market, and technologies such as GPL Software that
>MS cannot subvert, the position could change in the not-so-distant
>future.
>
>(*) I have yet to meet anyone else working in Ecology who knows that
>there is an alternative to MS Powerpoint for using a computer to give
>a presentation. At conferences and invited talks, one is often told
>that there is a computer available for giving an inline presentation -
>it never occurs to them to specify what software is installed.
Office has enjoyed a monopoly for at least three years. The same is
true of Word and Excel documents, which have become synonymous with
"document" and "spreadsheet", respectively.
Good thing StarOffice reads all those formats, at least well enough, and
cheaper than the alternative. Too bad that doesn't make any difference
at the moment.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:53:56 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:30:40
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> And once again, you've failed to enlighten anybody. Thanks for nothing,
>> I must say, because I can't logically say "thanks for less than
>> nothing", as there's really no reason I'd be thankful for that, eh?
>
>I did, in a post just a few minutes earlier in this thread. I know you
>read it since you responded to it prior to this repsonse. Do you have
>that short a memory?
No, you didn't. We've played this game before, Gary, about your
reticence. You pointed it out, just like you did in the post I
responded to, but you didn't explain anything any more. And even if you
did, why did you bother to play sniper games by correcting the same
point twice, when you knew the author couldn't have read your response?
I can understand that sort of thing in one of those long involved
troll-fests; I do it often myself. But merely because each restatement
of the fallacy by a troll is yet another opportunity for still a
different perspective, a bit more information to try to make the point.
You, on the other hand, just leap out and contradict and whenever its
brought up you insist that you explained yourself somewhere else.
That's not posting; that's trolling.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:33:48 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Jan 2001 08:02:25
[...]
>Do you guys really not get it? Something open source isn't perfect simply
>because it's open source.
Nobody said it was perfect. It is, however, demonstrably closer to
perfect than anything which is not open source, simply because it cannot
be ascertained how close to perfect something is if it is closed.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
