Linux-Advocacy Digest #689, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 22:13:07 EST
Contents:
Yet another Linux Cluster: (sfcybear)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Mark Styles)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("nuxx")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Russ Lyttle)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Russ Lyttle)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (Bob Hauck)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Russ Lyttle)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Yet another Linux Cluster:
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:03:55 GMT
This one is expected to make it into the top 200 fastest computers.
http://www.zdii.com/industry_list.asp?mode=news&doc_id=ZD2677225
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:11:15 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
[...]
>> > You really don't follow this stuff, do you?
>>
>> No, why would I? I already have a keyboard, and its attached to a real
>> computer. If I'd wanted a toy computer, I'd have a Macintosh, or WebTV.
>
>I object to the term `toy computer' re: macs. The OS may be a bit of a
>toy OS (not OS X, though) but the hardware is very good. A Linuxified
>mac would make a pretty decent workstation.
Indeed it would. Its all in the OS, as you surmise.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:11:52 -0500
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:51:22 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
[big snip]
> I'm also curious what exactly you do to make Applix crash.
Converting MS Office files (excel spreadsheets) into Applix format,
failed every time, sometimes dumping core, sometimes just sitting
there doing nothing.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:10:26 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 07:40:23 GMT
> <Hzab6.767$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On 22 Jan 2001 14:45:23 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK) wrote:
> >>
> >> >I only use <pre></pre> tage for stuff like author contact lists, or
> >> >formulae and very simple tables, for example, these ones on fusion
> >> >reaction energies:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/phys/fusion-energies.html
> >>
> >> Is that why your page looks like crap?
> >
> >It's a scientific presentation for crying out loud. It's meant to convey
> >information, not titilate surfers with RealAudio, ShockWave, and other
bells
> >and whistles. What the hell is wrong with you?
>
> Nothing that a good case of W3 (www.w3c.org) won't cure. :-)
>
> >
> >> >I just checked that in Lynx so it's OK.
> >>
> >> Oh now I see why ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >Some of us prefer to load pages of that sort quickly as we're not
interested
> >in the aforementioned bells and whistles. Lynx is excellent for that
purpose
> >and is blindingly fast...even on slow connections.
>
> It also allows one to actually *read* the text. (Gosh, what
> a concept!) Granted, there are some issues, such as viewing
> pictures (usually, this is handled via an external pic viewer).
> And I'm not sure how well it handles math expressions -- in fact,
> I'm not sure any browser currently out there handles math
> expressions more complicated than x<sub>j</sub><sup>2</sup>
> very well.... :-)
AFAIK, math expressions are almost always done in PostScript.
I've never had to produce things of that level, but many of the physics
articles that I follow use PS format for the articles, preciesly because of
this.
I rarely have a chace to see advance stuff (IE, anything with equations)
that is done in HTML. On those occasions, they do it with pictures.
That being said, there is a lot to be said on presenting the data in a nice
way. (commenting about this thread, not this post alone)
Personally, I don't see nothing wrong with the page's layout. I took a look
at the page's code, and while I would prefer the body's tag to be something
like:
<body bgcolor="#185603" background="none" text="#F9D797" vlink="#797979"
alink="#CDD0FE" link="#DCE19F">
I like the color combination, but I understand that it might not be
everyone's cup of tea.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:24:40 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94ksde$prf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 23 Jan 2001 16:32:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
04:35:45
> >>> [...]
> >>>>I think distributing PDF format files is an excelent idea. Even if it
does
> >>>>max bandwidth. [...]
> >>
> >>> PDF files are generally much smaller than their Word document
> >>> counterpart.
> >>
> >>In this vein, guess what happens to a W2K machine when you use
office2000
> >>to read a document you converted in staroffice from .rtf to .doc?
>
> > Now, why exactly would you bother?
>
> Because someone a few levels above me does not understand that unix exists
> at all, let alone is an operating system that I use daily on my main
workstation;
>
> I sent him an .rtf document and he returned it saying "I cant open
anything thats
> not a .doc" (why is it that he clicks on every goddamn .exe he sees, even
if its
> called "thisisavirusdontclickonit.exe", yet he refuses to double-fucking
click
> on an .rtf?) Anyhow, I get it back, do the conversion in staroffice under
Solaris,
> send it back and get a phone call.
Why?
Just rename the document's extention, that would open word, and word can
most certainly handle rtf files, unless someone has been messing *really*
hard on hte convertors during install.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:26:07 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94lcis$pae$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have a better suspicion. Your O2k install is damaged, or corrupt, and
the
> > document conversion engine is malfunctioning, causing the hard lock.
>
> Its not my install, its IT's install. And its not my workstation.
>
> And yes, I tried it both under VMware on my home machine and on another
> W2K machine at work. Hard lock with the same document.
Can you post the document, or something like it, that produce the same
results?
If you can, upload it somewhere and give the URL, I would like to test it.
------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:33:20 +0800
> >They "need to know" because as an NT administrator, it's their job to
know a
> >bit about the OS they are using. It's also designed to stop dickheads
who
>
> What's this VMS-think that's seeping in here?
>
Good one! Could be?
> Nope, I've been running Unixen for over 10 years and
> administering them for 5. Occasionally, I even hack
> the odd kernel driver.
>
Fair enough :-) You should then appreciate that learning an OS like Unix
does take a certain amount of effort and dedication. Although it has a
pretty Windows GUI, NT is no different really.
> >> Or, at the very least there should be a "admin server from
> >> telnet session" option.
> >
> >There is.
>
> WHERE. Do be precise.
>
On W2k Server, goto Add/Remove programs and install Terminal Services. You
can then use the control panel applet to set it in remote administration
mode (in remote admin mode, WTS is not chewing much resources). Note that
if you're not using a telnet client that supports NTLM authentication
(likely from a Unix box), you'll need to set clear text authentication in
the Terminal Services Manager control panel applet - search.microsoft.com
for how to do this. For best results, install the supplied support tools
and resource kit utilities and WSH. If this was a serious query, good luck!
As I said, it's not as good as Unix but a big step up from NT4.
nuxx
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:41:18 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > It took you a full minute?
> > >
> > > takes half that long with windows and no reboot is required for W2K (you
> > > xposted to a NT advocacy forum, not win9x)
> > >
> > > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I recently opened an new account with earthlink. After placing the
> > > > order, I waited for an hour, edited a kppp script, logged in and was
> up
> > > > and running within 1 minute. Today I got the package earthlink sends
> out
> > > > to all new users. It includes a CD and "Quick Start" guide. The last
> > > > line of the instructions for 95/98/Me is to reboot the computer.
> > > >
> > > > So much for MS operating systems being easier to use than Linux.
> > > > --
> > > > Russ
> > > > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > > > Not powered by ActiveX
> >
> > Real kicker, that I forgot to mention, is that NT and W2K aren't even
> > supported. If you call them they have a help option for NT, but not W2k.
> > It gets lumped into "other Operating systems, estimated time of wait is
> > 63 minutes". I only had to hold for 21 minutes for NT.
>
> Identical to how you do it in 9x.
> What is your point?
The ISP considers NT more important to support than W2K. I ask why they
don't have more Linux support. The answer was "Linux users don't need
our support. They usually support us."
I know MS is trying to obsolete NT, but the market doesn't seem to be
going along.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:43:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:34:46 GMT, Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Real kicker, that I forgot to mention, is that NT and W2K aren't even
> >supported. If you call them they have a help option for NT, but not W2k.
> >It gets lumped into "other Operating systems, estimated time of wait is
> >63 minutes". I only had to hold for 21 minutes for NT.
>
> This is true, but you can still plug the numbers in just like you did
> for Linux. Get used to being dumped into the "other operating systems
> catagory" because it is a way of life with Linux.
>
True. But it doesn't matter. I just got the support line with the
shortest wait. I only needed to know where they kept their CGI scripts,
and a couple of domain names. Any OS support line should have that info.
> You can also sign up online and avoid the wait..
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:45:50 +1300
I've actually talked to some inside Microsoft people, and Microsoft actually
sponsered the roll out etc, hence, not really a sign that Windows is
superior, just shows how much marketing and con-job muscle Microsoft has.
kiwiunixman
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a6cd52a$0$45770$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> While little MiG tries to impress with some brochure sites...
>
> MediaWave is deploying over 3,100 windows 2000 advanced servers all over
> europe to handle multimillions of simultaneous audio and video streams.
>
> Talk about demanding! Is there even a streaming server available for
linux?
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/Jan01/01-22MediaWavePR.asp
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:43:55 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:28:59 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>An easy-to-use-for-the-non-accountant accounting package
<http://moneydance.net/>
It is a Java app, so it might be a little slow on a 32 MB system, but it
is reasonable for personal accounting. Works better with IBM's Java
than with Sun's. Been using it for about a year now, no lost data or
crashes.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:43:58 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:35:45 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I brought up the idea of using Star Office to the IT committee at work.
>> It would save thousands in licensing costs after all, and runs on all of
>> the platforms we use (NT, Solaris, Linux). No one wanted to even
>> consider it, sight unseen, because of the risk that document exchange
>> with our customers might be hampered by imperfect conversions. Nobody
>> was even willing to do any testing, even though I have been using SO for
>> months without anybody noticing.
>
>All of your IT people should be fired. Immedately.
The only problem with that is the fact that the IT Committee is not made
up of IT people, but the CFO and representatives from each department
(including IT). The users in other words. The point is to create
dialog between IT and the users.
They do have a valid point too. They are afraid that even if it works
perfectly *now* it may not work when the next version of Office comes
out. It isn't as if MS has no history of such dirty tricks.
> A legitimate concern, but it turns out they (your IS people) were
> wrong, and compatibility is fine.
There are some glitches, but in general you're right. Which is why I
even brought it up to them.
> Now, if your IT people had declined it based upon THIS evaluation, I
> wouln't be so militiant. But they did not.
They declined based on the Fear of what MS might do in the next version,
the Uncertainty of not "going with the leader", and the Doubt that it
would be smooth sailing when our customers get the next version of Office.
> I think distributing PDF format files is an excelent idea. Even if it
> does max bandwidth.
PDF files are usually smaller than the equivalent Word file, especially
if you leave that stupid Fast Save feature turned on. And as you said,
you don't have to worry about presentation. The only disadvantage is
that they can't be (easily) edited, which is actually a good thing most
of the time, but not always.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:48:50 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:55:16 +0500, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The windows help is twice as long as Linux and contains many more steps.
Nice try, but no cigar.
1.DUN is installed by default on all but the earliest versions of
Win95. Those instructions include installing DUN but assume ppp is
installed.
2. You found those instructions on ATT's business pages, which is not
where a home user is going to go. They will be directed to Worldnet,
which is here. They are also way outdated, especially for Linux
considering kppp or Gnome PPP is the default dialer in some of the
more popular distributions.
http://www.worldnet.att.net
Go and search for Linux there and see what you find.
3. You have to be kidding if you think a newbie will be able to edit
those files and get it right. He won't even be able to find the
files.
First problem will be permissions.
Second problem will be to comment out "noauth" which you need to do in
some cases. Search the att.unix.dialers group archives for that one.
4. You are assuming the person already has a connection to the net. Is
the support guy going to read the scripts to the user over the phone?
5. Att can even re-install your settings if you screw them up. But
only under Windows and Mac.
6. I actually DO agree with you that assuming you get the relevant
entries (DNS/ID/Password etc) using a MODERN version of Linux and
Windows, it is just as easy to get online with a Linux friendly ISP
and ATT is Linux friendly in that they have a newsgroups devoted to
nix dialers that is pretty good.
You do give up additional software and support options though running
Linux.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:50:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:14:00 +0500, "Gary Hallock"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Sure, after waiting a few days for the CD to be shipped in the mail.
> >You totally missed the point.
> >
> >Gary
>
> No YOU missed the point Gary.
> Earthlink provides software on the CD that he can't use because it
> doesn't run under Linux. It's more for a family, or newbie, but it is
> useful none the less. Oh yea it also includes the latest version of IE
> 5.5 a quality browser instead of that piece of trash Netscape.
> And BTW the Windows user can connect just as easily by calling them,
> and guess what it takes about 10 minutes because the person on the
> other end of the phone will know exactly how to assist you in setting
> up your system.
> Most of his hour was probably spent waiting for Earthlink to find the
> one person in the support department who knows anything about Linsux.
>
> So it is YOU who, once again miss the picture.
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
I really could have gotten windows up and running before the CD got
here, I think. But even so, setting up and getting logged into an
unknown ISP is more difficult with windows. Also I wouldn't have had ftp
as that wasn't included on any of my windows distributions. I didn't
finish the CD install because it wanted to install IE on my computer and
I had enough troubele getting that piece of trash off the first time.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:50:40 GMT
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:45:18 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Find an ISP that actually DOES have Linux support and
> use their documentation as a template. AT&T Worldnet
> is just such an ISP. They have docs for every OS under
> the Sun.
ATT Worldnet IS Linux friendly.
Try and find the documentation for Linux on the Worldnet pages instead
of the business/commercial pages.
http://www.worldnet.att.net
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:35:15 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Vfqb6.5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Ehhh, actually that's not quite true when you say that Terminal Services
> > are slow, the protocol (RDP (I know nothing about ICA)) actually uses
less
> > bandwidth then X, especially trafic from the client to the
> > TerminalServer is kept to the minimum. The result is that TS is faster
> > than X on slow connections, on a 10+ Mbps network X feels much faster
> > than TS. Ofcource telnet/ssh requires even less overhead if it was
> > possible to do anything on NT in a CLI.
> >
> You can do most admin tasks in a Telnet session to a W2k server. Use the
> supplied support tools, W2k server resource kit utilities and WSH (Windows
> 2000 Server Resource Kit should be required reading for any serious W2k
> administrator). WTS or VNC and the RPC utilities do the job for the few
> things you can't do from the CLI. I _very_ rarely touch any of my
servers,
> some are a long distance away :-)
>
> I'm not trying to argue that W2k is as good as Unix for remote admin from
> the CLI, because it isn't by a fair distance. MS have recognised this as
a
> serious weakness (finally) and are working towards fixing it. I believe
> that you will be able to unload the GUI in Whistler(?) so they are
hopefully
> improving the CLI.
How?
Now this is something that I would like to know how it can be done.
I've Whistler beta 1, pro. How do I unload the GUI?
How much overhead does this remove? (Now this is interesting question.)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:41:53 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It's also noteworthy who's making the money, as well. I'm not sure
> when Hot100 will equal the Fortune500; in an ideal world, perhaps,
> they would be equal -- but this world isn't ideal.
Hell no!
Do you *want* the 100 most popular sites in the net to be the ones of
Fortune500?
It's not ideal, it's worse than 1984.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:51:48 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94koo1$13e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Start a new thread, I told you. This thread is talking about Fortune
500.
> : Why do you insist on ignoring this? Fortune 500 is, IMHO, as important,
or
> : more important than the Hot 100. I think it's more reasonable to see
what
> : Dell, Compaq, Merril Lynch, Fidelity, and many other huge corporations
are
> : using for their critical web eCommerce infrastructure than what eGroups
> : uses for their message boards, wouldn't you?
>
> (Grabbing the clue stick) *whack* *whack* For those companies, the
> web stuff is NOT CRITICAL. NOT AT ALL.) It is certainly a benefit
> to keep it running, and it certainly brings in more business, but
> it is not the only conduit of sales they have. Compare this with
> something that actually is 100% web based like Amazon or Google).
Or eBay?
BTW, please check this amusing site in netcraft:
http://linux.idg.se/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:58:30 -0000
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:33:20 +0800, nuxx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >They "need to know" because as an NT administrator, it's their job to
>know a
>> >bit about the OS they are using. It's also designed to stop dickheads
>who
>>
>> What's this VMS-think that's seeping in here?
>>
>Good one! Could be?
>
>> Nope, I've been running Unixen for over 10 years and
>> administering them for 5. Occasionally, I even hack
>> the odd kernel driver.
>>
>Fair enough :-) You should then appreciate that learning an OS like Unix
>does take a certain amount of effort and dedication. Although it has a
Dedication would be pushing it a bit.
All it really takes is a little gumption.
Just don't let the machine intimidate you.
Then again, GUI's are no less problematic in this repect.
>pretty Windows GUI, NT is no different really.
>
>> >> Or, at the very least there should be a "admin server from
>> >> telnet session" option.
>> >
>> >There is.
>>
>> WHERE. Do be precise.
>>
>On W2k Server, goto Add/Remove programs and install Terminal Services. You
>can then use the control panel applet to set it in remote administration
>mode (in remote admin mode, WTS is not chewing much resources). Note that
>if you're not using a telnet client that supports NTLM authentication
>(likely from a Unix box), you'll need to set clear text authentication in
>the Terminal Services Manager control panel applet - search.microsoft.com
>for how to do this. For best results, install the supplied support tools
>and resource kit utilities and WSH. If this was a serious query, good luck!
This is somewhat more involved than clicking any option
in the installer and then just logging in through the telnet
daemon available in even the 'client' version of NT5.
This isn't entirely what I asked for.
>
>As I said, it's not as good as Unix but a big step up from NT4.
That's not saying much.
Plus, you have to pay more for it (server versus client).
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:02:22 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:11:52 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:51:22 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>[big snip]
>> I'm also curious what exactly you do to make Applix crash.
>
>Converting MS Office files (excel spreadsheets) into Applix format,
>failed every time, sometimes dumping core, sometimes just sitting
>there doing nothing.
Excel spreadsheets are the reason I installed SO 5.2.
Applix didn't crash, but the results were not satsifactory
either. Even the version of 123 from smartsuite 97 couldn't
manage the file in question and it was a rather simple one
too.
Hopefully openoffice will at least split SO into several
bloated pigs rather than an entire Red Dwarf.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:47:33 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:51:18 +0800, nuxx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> This is the Moron's Server OS. Why should they "need to know"?
> >> Applets this tiny should just plain be installed by default.
> >
> >They "need to know" because as an NT administrator, it's their job to know a
> >bit about the OS they are using. It's also designed to stop dickheads who
>
> What's this VMS-think that's seeping in here?
Just beacuse NT is easier to admin doesn't mean that people walking
in from the street should be doing it. It still takes a good deal of
knowledge. Anyone claiming or bashing Windows NT/2K should at least
have a working knowledge of how to kill a process most efficiently.
Unlike you, Ghost in the Machine typically takes these kinds of things
under advisement for future reference.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
