Linux-Advocacy Digest #848, Volume #31 Tue, 30 Jan 01 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Sound a networks
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sound a networks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux?
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Andres Soolo)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Kevin Ford)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Kevin Ford)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Kevin Ford)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Kevin Ford)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Kevin Ford)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Kevin Ford)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Kevin Ford)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Kevin Ford)
Re: ADSL, Alcatel, BT and Linux (Kevin Ford)
Re: Linux headache
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Sound a networks
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:11:59 -0000
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:48:17 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm prepared to suspend judgement, but your endless
>> woes just sound so improbable to me - I feel you are
>> getting a real kick out of seeing how you can flounder
>> about, stumbling and reeling from one crisis to the next.
>
>Unfortunately, these things are _really_ happening. I'm not making them up.
The Kudzu that detects my via-rhine under Bughat 6.2 is the
same Kudzu that you seem to claim is NOT detecting that
via-rhine under Mandrake.
...seems a bit peculiar, don't you think?
Mandrake is just dressed up Bughat after all...
[deletia]
As far as things like subnets go;
well, it's not a pyschic interface...
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:14:19 GMT
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:37:01 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Hubs are bog standard devices. They work fine. You're
> simply full of shit.
Sure they are.
It's the devices that don't work under Linsux <snicker>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sound a networks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:16:25 GMT
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:11:59 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> The Kudzu that detects my via-rhine under Bughat 6.2 is the
> same Kudzu that you seem to claim is NOT detecting that
> via-rhine under Mandrake.
>
> ...seems a bit peculiar, don't you think?
>
> Mandrake is just dressed up Bughat after all...
Apples and oranges, there is enough difference to make one work and
the other not work.
Try the same experiment under Mandrake 7.2 like Pete and I did and see
what happens.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux?
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:19:32 -0000
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:47:20 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Those aren't Cray supercomputers. They're clusters of above average,
>but
>> > basically normal systems.
>>
>> I ran your post through babelfish, and the result was -
>>
>> "If it doesn't run on Windows, it ain't worth squat."
>>
>>
>> FYI, Linux has all but taken over a market where Microsoft doesn't even
>have a
>> toehold.
>
>Why are you people so incapable of sticking to a topic?
>
>The topic, is someone stating that Linux is running on Cray supercomputers
>based on a link. The real fact is that it's not a Cray supercomputer, it's
>a Cray cluster of average computers. Yet in your hurry to slam everything,
>you don't bother to understand what you're commenting on.
An Alpha is hardly average. It will TOAST anything that Windows
currently runs on. Plus, the change in architecture really isn't
relevant if the nature of running things under UNICOS doesn't
change.
THAT part of the situation is something you are completely
unqualified to comment on. Besides, even if your rantings
are true: the fact remains that Unix and Linux are all over
this niche in high performance computing and NT isn't.
Unlike a bit of text on a webpage about benchmarks, Unix
parallel computing clusters are actually being deployed
and used for serious productive use.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: 30 Jan 2001 18:22:39 GMT
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> games: vi none ...
I've seen Life for vi :-)
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:40:49 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers once wrote:
>> >
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Who holds the #1 - #4 spots on the TPC.org TPC-C performance rankings?
>> >>
>> >> Just the fact that chad asks the question tells us that
>> >> there are some windows pcs there -
>> >>
>> >> My prediction is that these windows records will
>> >> be broken by Unix systems - maybe solaris, maybe
>> >> aix, maybe Linux, maybe all of the above, but they
>> >> will not stand.
>> >
>> >The Unixes had leap frogged for years, then Win2K came
>> >in and blew them away. There may be one that takes the
>> >lead, but MS will be right back up there before long.
>> >
>> >As far as Linux on the TPC, please, don't make me laugh.
>> >Linux isn't even ON the tpc, ANYWHERE, let alone on the
>> >leader board.
>> >
>>
>> Windows 2000 couldn't even reliably server quake 3 for 6
>> people for us last night.
>
>Ah yes, and here we have it folks! Everyone stop buying
>Win2K because Kevin was too incompetent to keep his box
>running. Never mind that we have no idea what hardware he
>was using, what other software he was running, what was
>the exact problem he encountered with Quake3, or the
>fact that Quake3 really isn't all that great of a game
>and tends to crash frequently on any system.
>
How come when using the same system and files that win98 was
more reliable, and this was SE (the network code in ME seems
to be stuffed - couldn't handle more than 3 clients without
ping times rapidly spiralling). I nipped home and got my
Linux server (in fact the one I am typing on) and we lasted
the whole rest of the night without the box breaking sweat.
And my box is poorer hardware.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:38:38 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers once wrote:
>> >
>> >"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.
>> >
>>
>> MMC is a joke and you know it.
>
>Hmm, you've never used it, have you?
>
>Have you seen all the snap-ins?
>
We use it for a web based hardware ordering system at work.
It's nothing special, and certainly nowhere near as flexible as nice
terminal / X session.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:41:24 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers once wrote:
>> >
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Jan Johanson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Those records broke every unix record ever held. There has never been a
>> >> > single linux appearence in the TPC benchmarks because linux lack
>enterprise
>> >> > scalability and performance and lacks an appropriate database.
>> >>
>> >> Let's consider the fallacies in your statement -
>> >>
>> >> 1. "Linux lacks enterprise scalability"
>> >>
>> >> This statement indicates you are out of your depth here,
>> >> and merely parroting the party line. Had you just finished
>> >> reading microsoft's hilarious "Linux Myths" page?
>> >
>> >The obvious question is, why isn't Linux on the TPC? Surely,
>> >if it was the best, IBM would be looking for any reason to
>> >oust MS from #1-#4 on the tpc. The answer is, Linux isn't
>> >anywhere near ready. It just doesn't have the infrastructure
>> >necessary to compete on the level of Win2K, AIX, Solaris, etc.
>> >
>> >Likewise, there's no high-caliber database for Linux. There's
>> >Oracle, but from what I've heard, it doesn't perform anywhere
>> >near the way it does on Win2K and Solaris.
>> >
>> >What about a transaction processor? Is there any enterprise-class
>> >transaction processor for Linux?
>> >
>> >Perhaps you should think a little before speaking from your anus.
>> >
>>
>> I've never really heard of this TPC before.... sounds like something
>> companies use when it suits them.
>>
>> You have to consider that entering this tpc thing isn't free.
>
>Ah yes, when confronted with your own ignorance, attack the source,
>because it certainly isn't reliable. Never mind that it's been a
>trusted industry benchmark dominated by Unix vendors and large
>database vendors for years, only to be trounced upon by Microsoft.
>
I don't care about other Unix vendors. This is linux advocacy you
moron.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:43:32 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
J Sloan once wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, you mustn't have taken your pills this
>> morning. Linux 2.4 is really a catch-up measure, bringing Linux's
>> feature set into circa 1998. Everyone has moved on.
>
>This is really incredible - you have no idea what you're
>talking about, so you stoop to name calling and insults.
>
>And believe me, you have no clue.
>
>I'll leave it for others to judge whether you've made
>your point, or whether you've decisively flipped the
>bozo bit on yourself for all to see -
>
It's Microsofts professional server product that needs to
catch up - evidence the complete lack of certified products.
Even Linux on Alpha has more.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:42:11 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > The obvious question is, why isn't Linux on the TPC?
>>
>> Because no distributions have shipped with the 2.4 kernel yet?
>
>So you think 2.4 will suddenly make Linux jump into the future
>and suddenly be stable and a serious contender, as opposed to the
>joke it is now? I'm sorry, you mustn't have taken your pills this
>morning. Linux 2.4 is really a catch-up measure, bringing Linux's
>feature set into circa 1998. Everyone has moved on.
>
Linux is stable you choad. I see you haven't responded to the hot100
uptime figures yet.
>> > Surely,
>> > if it was the best, IBM would be looking for any reason to
>> > oust MS from #1-#4 on the tpc.
>>
>> Excellent point - If that's the case, it's just a matter of time.
>
>Suuuurrrreeee... keep dreaming.
>
>Face it, Linux just doesn't have what it takes to even make an
>appearence on the price/performance board. At least NT 4 owned
>that spot. Win2K now owns the covetted Performance category.
>
Price performance? Have you seen Microsofts support costs????
------------------------------
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: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:53:13 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jim Richardson wrote:
>> >
>> > On 28 Jan 2001 07:44:44 -0500,
>> > Norman D. Megill, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > brought forth the following words...:
>> >
>> > >In article <dGKc6.19391$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > >Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > >
>> > >> Besides, Win2K has NTFS5 which doesn't have this problem anyhow.
>> > >
>> > >If so, let's hope they have better luck than these people when they
>> > >try to use Win2K for their enterprise application:
>> > >
>> > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
>> > >
>> > >--Norm
>> > >
>> >
>> > I did find this story amusing, wonder if M$ will fly some techs and muscle
>out
>> > to "convince" Delphi to change their minds...
>> >
>>
>> A quick glance to:
>>
>> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.delphi.com
>>
>> tells that if they did, they didn't succeed, for the moment.
>>
>> It also tells that with Win2k they weren't able to keep their site up
>> for more than half a day.
>
>Which means they were incredibly incompetent. You could try to break
>Win2K and you still couldn't get it to crash that often. They must
>be switching the power on and off or rebooting for the hell of it.
>
You should see the simple hacks around to freeze & crash Win2k if you have
equivalent bandwidth. I'm not posting as I don't promote hacking.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:51:56 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers once wrote:
>> >
>> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:ERKc6.99$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:02:04 GMT, Chad Myers
>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >> When we install the 2.4.x kernal and associated libraries to enable
>> >> > >> >2Gb file support, we do *not* have to reformat any disk partitions
>> >> > >> to make the change effective.
>> >> >
>> >> > > What about the applications? Don't most of them have to be rewritten
>> >> > > to support the new method?
>> >> >
>> >> > No, they just have to be _recompiled_, nor _rewritten_. If you knew
>> >> > anything at all about computers or software, you would understand why.
>> >>
>> >> No, they have to be rewritten to use off_t and lseek, rather than fseek or
>> >> ftell. If the application was originally written to use lseek, then it's
>> >> possible to recompile, but few developers actually do that.
>> >
>> >One example that we always use (you know, since they claim that Linux is
>> >enterprise-ready) is Oracle on Linux. You can't recompile Oracle, so you'll
>> >just have to wait until the next version, and maybe, just maybe, Oracle
>> >will be nice and include its support for the >2GB files, but maybe not.
>> >I'm sure there are a dozen or so other applications that will have this
>problem.
>> >
>> >That's just the little piece that they never tell you when they say, "Linux
>> >supports >2GB files! You're an idiot for saying any less!".
>> >
>>
>> www.scyld.com you fuckwit
>
>Welcome to the KillFile.
>
>You seem to be pretty dense, insisting that Linux has even the remotest
>hope in the Enterprise department, something of which is has no features
>or design for.
>
>Oh well, pitty.
>
I wondered how you would counter the argument.
We're meeting RedHat/Compaq representatives on getting a Beowulf cluster
in tomorrow to beef up our time recording/task tracking system (industry
regulations) as the old IBM box just can't cope with it. The system
needs to be 24/7 and therefore HA. Windows was considered, but as any
current Windows based HA Cluster actually leads to lower uptime than
Windows on its own it was rightfully rejected.
Enter Linux as by far the price/performance leader.
Welcome to the Enterprise.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:45:05 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>> > as opposed to the joke it is now?
>>
>> I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.
>>
>> IBM thinks Linux is worth a billion dollars, but you say
>> it's a joke. Please, enlighten us by explaining why
>> you think it's a joke.
>
>Ah yes. And IBM has never made a bad investment. In fact,
>IBM is batting 1000 on their choices of products. I mean,
>just look at how wildly successful Lotus has been since they
>purchased it *snicker*.
>
>IMHO, When IBM takes interest in you and likes what you're doing,
>that's an insult and a sign of failure, not a boon.
>
You really are off the planet aren't you.
IBM are fucking brilliant and you know it. Unless you've never
dealt with them in which case you should shut up because this is
a newsgroup not an opinion group.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: ADSL, Alcatel, BT and Linux
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:45:55 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Darren Winsper once wrote:
>Darren Winsper wrote:
>
>> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16343.html
>>>
>>> One reason I'm not with BT. I'm with The Cable Corporation (i.e.
>>> Telewest) and I'm getting a Cable Modem soon.
>>
>>
>> IIRC Alan Cox filed a complaint with Oftel about this, but I doubt
>> they'll do anything.
>
>Update; there will be a driver released for the modem, but it will be
>closed source.
>
Where did you see that, my mate works for Alcatel, I'll flame him a
bit, see what he can do.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux headache
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:02:03 -0000
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:57:00 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jasper wrote:
>
>> You're quite correct. The fact that people are currently attempting
>> to use a thin client system like Unix as a desktop OS is nothing short
>> of bizzare. I can only assume this has come about through blind
>> hatred of MS without any consideration of the nature of Linux/Unix.
>
>Or, it could be due to the fact that people actually LIKE running
>Linux/Unix on the desktop. For me, it has nothing at all to do with
If MS-DOS could be successfully hammered into a desktop OS,
Unix should have no problem. Hey, that's right. Unix WAS
hammered into a better desktop OS well before Microsloth got
it's act together (NeXT).
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
