Linux-Advocacy Digest #743, Volume #31 Fri, 26 Jan 01 10:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler predictions... (Mart van deWege)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (Mart van deWege)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Kevin Ford)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Kevin Ford)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Kevin Ford)
Re: Microsoft is fired. (Kevin Ford)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Kevin Ford)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Kevin Ford)
Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux (Kevin Ford)
Whistler, the greatest jump forward in the evolution of computing... ("bAckline")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("MH")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Darren Winsper)
Re: Whistler predictions... (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:02:09 +0000
From: Mart van deWege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
<snip some stuff>
>> In Microsoft's new EULA they will simply state that
>
>> *** YOU *** agree to this on a permanent basis.
>
>
>
> No license agreement can take away your rights.
Erik,
READ the bloody EULA for a change! It specifically states that
ONLY a single backup is permitted. So if I like to be safe and
want to have multiple redundant backups, I am in violation,
although copyright law and precedent specifically grant me the
right to make multiple backups.
I am not even talking about the fact that my Win98 OEM EULA was
tied to my HARDWARE. Technically I am now in violation of it,
because I have upgraded my HD, and Win98 is no longer installed
on the HARDWARE it was licensed on.
Now Microsoft should know they can't make these conditions stick
in a court of law, so why do they keep putting them in?
Mart
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:31:11 +0000
From: Mart van deWege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Martin Eden wrote:
<snip some stuff>
> As I understand it, there is going to be Professional and Personal
>
> versions. Personal will be the upgrade from WinME, Professional will be
>
> upgrade from Win2K. Server versions may appear too, I imagine.
>
>
>
> I never got to find out whether the personal version will support SMP, nor
>
> NTFS, nor any of the other worthwhile features Microsoft likes to hide from
>
> the poor suckers who are stuck with OEM installs. I ran the "Professional"
>
> edition. I wasn't impressed.
<snip some more>
So,
If I understand, Windows 2000 was introduced in Feb 2000, and it
is already slated for replacement this year? Not to mention of
course that WinME was only introduced in what, November?
Talk about forced upgrade!
Mart
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:21:49 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ono once wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said ono in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:12:24 +0100;
>> >> "The tests that produced the greatest failure rates are the random
>Win32
>> >> message tests. In the normal course of events, these messages are
>> >> produced by the kernel and sent to an application program. It is
>> >> unlikely (though not impossible) that the kernel would send messages
>> >> with invalid values. Still, these tests are interesting for two
>reasons.
>> >> First, they demonstrate the vulnerability of this interface. Any
>> >> application program can send messages to any other application program.
>> >> There is nothing in the Win32 interface that provides any type of
>> >> protection. Modern operation systems should provide more durable
>> >> firewalls."
>> >
>> >We're talking about os failures here, not about badly written
>applications.
>> >btw: The person who made those tests is full of it!
>>
>> And you know its true, because he put an exclamation point at the end.
>C'mon, start thinking. These test are like when you put water into the tank
>of a car and measure how long it takes for the engine to die.
>Why sould I protect my application in a release build from random data when
>the data is always generated on the same machine from the same programs?
>You unix/linux people must be really desperate to prove fault in ms software
>to take such crap at face-value.
>
>
If your car was a firewall hackers would put 'water in the tank' all the
time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:28:46 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron R. Kulkis once wrote:
>"." wrote:
>>
>> > >> Our solaris box we've retired and I can say not soon enough, we were
>> > >> tired of it crashing all the time.
>> >
>> > >Two possibilities here:
>> > >
>> > >1) You're lying
>> > >
>> > >2) Your admins are incompetent
>> >
>> > You forgot 3) the machine was 10 years old and had a bad disk drive.
>>
>> Always more possibilities ;)
>>
>> However, should the machine have been 10 years old with a dodgy drive,
>> then point 2 is also in effect =) (up until the point someone refuses
>> to buy a new machine on the admins advice, naturally)
>
>Big deal. You go out and buy a new drive.
>
>10-year old HP works great with new drives. (I know...I've been there :-)
>
A guy here at work runs windows 3.1 on a PIII 700, it absolutely flies,
the Wintel alliance has been really bad for PC's they should be by rights
the most powerful things ever at the moment but they still lag badly even
behind mainframes let alone these old sparc 20's we have here at work.
All I can say is I can't wait for us to get out hands on some servers as
we have just been green lighted to whack lvs clustering on them.
We'll show the microsoft followers in this office what a real cluster is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:43:56 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin once wrote:
>In article <94nmkd$8o8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There is a legitimate reason to do what Aaron did. There are some
>> websites out there that check the browser type and alter their
>> behavior accordingly. Some of them don't account for the existance
>> of Linux, and as such deny a Linux browser even when there's no
>> technical reason it woudln't work.
>
>I don't think there are that many sites out there - I would have noticed
>as I use konqueror and Netscape from Linux.
>
How would you know unless you had compared them to IE5 at the same time?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:52:24 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch once wrote:
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Hmm.. according to the press release, it was a configuration error.
>>
>> Hmmm... They're having trouble again today. It sure takes MS a long time
>to
>> fix configuration errors.
>
>Today's problem was a DDoS attack on their routers. Apparently, some script
>kiddies wanted to make MS look even worse, never mind the fact that this is
>the sort of attack that crippled companies like Yahoo and AT&T not too long
>ago.
>
And what is the common theme between these three websites?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:20:12 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ono once wrote:
>> Perhaps you've a better graphics card than my last two (the current ones
>> a laptop).
>There you have it! Your graphics card vendor doesn't know shit about writing
>drivers.
>
>
>> it isn't there. I've never seen a Windows box that doesn't stutter when
>> its doing any I/O. Ever.
>Obviouly you've never seen mine :-).
>
The only way it's going to happen is if your hard drive is quicker than
your system Ram or you are using a SCSI card with write back cacheing
enabled and ridiculous amounts of Ram.... Windows has to wait for write
confirmation unless you've disassembled and hacked the kernel.
Or you could just be a blind or a liar.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
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: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:34:38 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin once wrote:
>Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:34:36
> [...]
>>It's interesting then, now that FAT has moved on, whereas ext2fs
>>has not. (NOTE: I realize FAT sucks, I'm not trying to claim it's
>>better than ext2fs, just more updated).
>
>Guffaw.
>
Hmmm..... what's ext3 and reiser then
or you could just go to www.scyld.com and get the patch to exceed 2GB
limits.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:47:21 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Albert Ulmer once wrote:
>Jerry Wong wrote:
>
>> I want to gather information on the compatibility of Motherboards on
>> Linux.
>
>I'm using a GigaByte GA6BXDS here. Works like a charm.
>
Every board I've ever owned: nameless 386, 'Topgun' 486.
FICA VA503+
BCM VP1543
ASUS A7V
DFI P5BV3+
These Compaq Deskpros at work (6333/3.2)
These HP Vectras at work
These Digital HX and ZX6000's at work
you would probably be better trying to compile a list of boards that don't
work.
------------------------------
From: "bAckline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Whistler, the greatest jump forward in the evolution of computing...
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:06:39 GMT
Microsoft Windows 2001, code-name whistler, said to be the
greatest jump forward in the evolution of computing and
information technology, since the advent of the
drop-shadowed mouse cursor. Windows 2001 will be easier
to use, faster, more reliable, more advanced and better
looking than any other computing platform currently available
to man.
http://www.geek-ware.co.uk/article.pl?sid=00/11/10/2134203
PROUD to be GEEK
http://www.geek-ware.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:42:29 GMT
ono wrote:
>
> >
> > Things which suddenly lock up or crash for no good reason are "unstable".
> >
> >
> > Conversely, systems and applications which continue to run (as they
> should)
> > UNTIL the user or administrator shuts it down are called "stable".
> >
> That's why I run ms stuff only on my pc's (with very few exceptions). Seems
> to be the only way nowadays to have a box that never locks up or crashes. I
> was very happy that ms bought Visio so I could finally run an excellent
> drawing program.
So you didn't buy Visio because is was non-MS software? (Cutting off your
nose to spite your face!) And now that Microsoft bought Visio (and, incidentally,
making files edited in Visio 2000 unable to be read in Visio 5, those
lock-in lunatics!), the software is magically copacetic?
Anyway, apart from Borland C++ Builder, most of the problems I have on
my NT box at work arise when running MS products, such as Word 2000.
It's amazing how buggy that product is at this late stage in its
lifetime.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:10:27 -0500
> Heh. Microsoft shot itself in the foot with Windows 2000.
Perhaps.
> I got the chance to see the much lauded "Whistler Professional" in action
> last night. What a worthless piece of shit. I thought WinME was crap, but
> this sets a whole new standard in worthlessness. It was slow as molasses
on
> a 700mhz Pentium III. There were a lot of very stupid and useless add ons
in
> it too, including some bizarre theme manager that will make your desktop
> look marginally like Aqua (MacOS X).
Your knowlege of the word 'beta' as it applies to software is marginal,
isn't it?
There is tons of debug code running in whistler, at least in build 2296.
The process list is more than double what it would be under normal
circumstances, and
constant logging is going on behind the scenes. Please look for, and get a
clue before spreading this manure.
-the rest was deemed waste, and was snipped accordingly.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:57:04 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94qdeg$13mm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:94nnig$8o8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :>
> :> I don't need to see it. It isn't possible to get better than 100%.
> :> EVERYTHING in Unix is remotable. The best anyone can do is to match
> :> that, but it isn't physically possible to actually beat it.
>
> : Windows Terminal Services + Microsoft Management Console provides
> : better than telnet remotability.
>
> That's nice. Now wake up and look at the calender. UNIX *also*
> provides better than telnet remotability.
Not really. They're all variations of telnet (SSH, etc). Some
of their applications have web-based administration components
which are usually horribly slow and semi-broken.
Nothing like MMC or the speed of WTS.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100.
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 08:07:29 -0600
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> "Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>
> > > Solaris - 35 sites (30 with stats), avg 60.18, max 334.76, min 6.26
> > > Linux - 19 sites (14 with stats), avg 36.73, max 89.39, min 4.94
> > > W2K - 11 sites, avg 19.82, max 45.05, min 3.84
>
> Hello, Chad! Four days and counting. Where's that reply?
Hello, Chad! Five days and counting. When are you going to come out and
champion the Unix killer?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:04:33 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob Hauck
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:44:00 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:59:00 GMT, Chad Myers
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, VBScript is incredibly easy to learn and use. For people just
> >> starting, and who don't want to use Windows/IIS for the web server,
> >> ChilliASP is a good way to get started.
> >
> >You are insane.
>
> Personally, I think VBScript would be incredibly easy to use and
> learn for projects of, oh, say, about 5 lines or less.
> But it gets weird quickly, IMO. :-) For example: how does one
> declare a class with public, protected, and private data
> members, inheriting from another class? Java and C++ can
> handle this without difficulty; I think Perl 5 can, too.
VBScript is... well, a scripting language. I'm not sure that
JavaScript can do this, either. VBScript isn't intended to be a full
programming language for full applications, it's intended for...
well, scripting. It does a great job in ASP, for example, for
each individual page.
No one ever claimed that VBScript should replace C++ or Java.
> >> Learning Perl, Python, or PHP has a steeper learning curve and, in
> >> some cases, doesn't provide as many features.
> >
> >Why is the PHP learning curve steeper than VBScript? What features do
> >these languages lack? Have you ever used any of them or is this just
> >more Chad Bullshit (tm)?
>
> I would also be curious as to what features -- beyond the obvious one
> of being supported by a certain company in Redmond which Really and
> Truly Has The Customer's Interests At Heart(tm) :-) -- are in
> Visual Basic that are lacking in Perl, PHP, or Python.
> This includes COM, ActiveX, and ADO, BTW -- although these may
> be extra-cost options. (But then, PERL itself is written in C;
> one could in principle glom on a module to handle COM, ActiveX,
> or ADO within Perl itself, in a manner similar to that ugly "delegate"
> hack in J++. The things I'm seeing, however, are more elegant,
> fortunately; Perl 5 has object call capability.)
The major one, as you mentioned, is that none of the others support
COM automation except for ActiveState's Perl implementation which
has an add-on/mod.
I'm not sure how you'd implement multi-teired applications with
Perl or PHP. I suppose CORBA fits in there, but then CORBA's
not all that desirable compared with COM.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:05:16 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94qbft$127g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:94nl5c$8o8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> : Despite what Bobby would have you believe, I never considered the
> :> : Hot100 irrelevant in general, just not for this thread. I was
> :> : talking about businesses who have a significant investment in
> :> : the web and who have large capital and profits.
> :>
> :> No you weren't. You were talking about the Fortune 500.
>
> : Which are the Fortune 500, I've established that.
>
> : Nice try.
>
> I guess we don't agree on what the word "signifigant" actually
> means in this context. I don't consider an investment of
> a few percent of your total budget on "the web" as being
> as "signifigant" an investment as a company that is 100%
> web based, even if the total sum of money of those few
> percent is large becuase the parent company is large.
So you would deny that Dell obtains a significant, if not
majority of their revenue from the web? (If you would,
you'd be wrong).
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:07:10 GMT
"Stuart Krivis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:38:37 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> Hate to break this to you, but resier has been shipping for some time.
> >
> >Really? This must have been within the past month or two, because we
> >were just having this debate about that time.
> >
> >What is the shipping version, and what distributions are using it
> >as their default filesystem?
>
> "Default" filesystem? I'm not sure this makes much difference. Win NT
> installs defaulted to FAT, IIRC.
You don't recall correctly. It really doesn't default to anything.
It asks you which filesystem you wish to put on the partition: FAT/NTFS.
If the partition is already FAT, it asks if you wish to convert to
NTFS, but it's not a requirement.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:07:58 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > P.S.- sponsoring an independant benchmark does not necessarily
> > taint the findings.
>
> Hint: "sponsored" and "independent" clash.
Then you have no idea how the scientific world works. All studies
are sponsored by someone, but it doesn't affect the outcome of
the study.
Just more Penguinista fud.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:09:17 GMT
"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:34:36 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> |
> |"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> |news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <snipped>
>
> |> unix style filesystems with the inodes &c were also designed in the
> |> 70s. however, it's not the age of the filesystem design. it's the
> |> also competence of the design and the goal of the design. FAT was
> |> made for floppies and tiny systems. unix filesystems were made for
> |> hard drives and larger systems. it's still MS's fault for keeping
> |> such a bad design as FAT and trying to keep it going where it doesn't
> |> belong, but age is not the issue.
> |
> |It's interesting then, now that FAT has moved on, whereas ext2fs
> |has not. (NOTE: I realize FAT sucks, I'm not trying to claim it's
> |better than ext2fs, just more updated).
>
>
> Read what Johan said.
>
> ext2 got it right the first time, FAT had to be updated 2 or 3
> times in the intervening period.
Like I said, FAT sucks. But, ext2 DIDN'T get it right the first
time, they've had to update it, and now they're moving on
to ext3 because of the failings of ext2.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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?)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:10:16 GMT
"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> writes:
> > >
> > > > "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 agree. linux should move to 64 bit size_t for files regardless of
> > > processor. linux-2.4 will do large files, but C is a cranky beast
> > > sometimes and updating software can be cumbersome.
> > >
> > > > I can assure you that there was no need for 2GB files
> > > > in the 70s, when FAT was designed.
> > >
> > > unix style filesystems with the inodes &c were also designed in the
> > > 70s. however, it's not the age of the filesystem design. it's the
> > > also competence of the design and the goal of the design. FAT was
> > > made for floppies and tiny systems. unix filesystems were made for
> > > hard drives and larger systems. it's still MS's fault for keeping
> > > such a bad design as FAT and trying to keep it going where it doesn't
> > > belong, but age is not the issue.
> >
> > It's interesting then, now that FAT has moved on, whereas ext2fs
> > has not.
>
> ext2fs is only a few years old.
So that's an excuse? NTFS is older than ext2 and it has way more
functionality and stability.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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?)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:10:50 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:02:39 GMT, Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> "Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> writes:
> >> >
> >> > > "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]...
> [deletia]
> >> > 70s. however, it's not the age of the filesystem design. it's the
> >> > also competence of the design and the goal of the design. FAT was
> >> > made for floppies and tiny systems. unix filesystems were made for
> >> > hard drives and larger systems. it's still MS's fault for keeping
> >> > such a bad design as FAT and trying to keep it going where it doesn't
> >> > belong, but age is not the issue.
> >>
> >> It's interesting then, now that FAT has moved on, whereas ext2fs
> >> has not.
> >
> >ext2fs is only a few years old.
>
> ext2fs is also perfectly capable of handling "large files"
> on MODERN archictures. It just so happens that PC Kludge
> Klones don't meet that definition very well.
Ah yes, typical Penguinista reply, Blame everyone but yourself
for your poor design.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:26:31 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Darren Winsper wrote:
>
>
>> It's a shame Rampage will never see the light of day. Full DirectX8
>> support and low-cost FSAA, sweet :)
>
>
> Not heard of Rampage. Did see Incoming Forces - unfortunately based on DX8
> RC1.
Rampage was going to be 3dfx's next generation chip. It's a shame
because 3dfx had working prototypes and were more or less ready to have
it delivered around about March or so.
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:02:09 -0500
On 25 Jan 2001 20:25:07 -0600, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I SERIOULSY doubt it's possible for anyone to spue more lies and FUD in a
>single post than this asshole.
>
You've got to be joking. Charlie may be a world-class idiot, but he is
a featherweight in the bullshitting asshole department compared to
T(roll) Max Devlin.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
