Linux-Advocacy Digest #939, Volume #31 Sat, 3 Feb 01 16:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:29 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:35:58
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
>> We all know and love windows, and we all have a pretty
>> good idea how it acts in real life.
>
>You've never used Windows 2000 have you?
What'd I tell you?
>Didn't think so. Really, you'd have to try REALLY hard to get
>it to crash that often.
You'd certainly have to try REALLY hard to get it to crash ON PURPOSE.
Its the fact that it crashes when you DON'T WANT IT TO that gives it
that unique "Microsoft Look And Feel (tm)".
>Otherwise, you'd have to be a real moron
>to have that happen.
Guffaw! Yes, Chad, every computer user is, by default, a moron. Which
is why OSes aren't supposed to be as crappy as Windows (any version) is.
>It really sounds like these Delphi guys
>are complete and total morons in every sense of the word.
A Double Guffaw!! Do you not recognize (or know) the name "Delphi"?
These guys are what invented the thing that AOL tries so hard to
monopolize.
>Perhaps you are confusing Win9x? It's a typical Penguinista mistake.
No, Penguinistas are far more knowledgable, obviously, than you are. I
don't think anyone could possibly be as unknowledgable as you, Chad.
You posses anti-knowledge, to a degree that makes 'FUD' seem like a
children's toy.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:31 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:08:04
>"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Curtis wrote:
>> >
>> > > >J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>> > >
>> > > > | Penguinistas have a clearer idea than most about OSes.
>> > >
>> > > No. They seem to have a clear idea only of their favoured OS which
>> > > they really USE and not simply SEE running around the office or give
>> > > the light of day only when they need to read file format not supported
>> > > by their favoured OS. This is perfectly reasonable.
>> >
>> > Actually, most Linux users are more technical than
>> > the average windows user, and furthermore, most
>> > Linux users were windows users at one time. So the
>> > idea that a Linux user can't tell the difference between
>> > 95 and nt is just plain silly.
>>
>> also many linux users were unix users at university and now have
>> become all too familiar with ms-windows in all its incarnations at
>> work.
>
>Or, as it seems more often than not, never touched Windows, or only
>saw Windows95 and believe that ALL Windows are as bad as
>that and therefore speak from their ass on such topics.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:33 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:07:03
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Curtis wrote:
>>
>> > >J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>> >
>> > > | Penguinistas have a clearer idea than most about OSes.
>> >
>> > No. They seem to have a clear idea only of their favoured OS which
>> > they really USE and not simply SEE running around the office or give
>> > the light of day only when they need to read file format not supported
>> > by their favoured OS. This is perfectly reasonable.
>>
>> Actually, most Linux users are more technical than
>> the average windows user, and furthermore, most
>> Linux users were windows users at one time. So the
>> idea that a Linux user can't tell the difference between
>> 95 and nt is just plain silly.
>
>You'd be surprised. Many of your ilk post to this newsgroup and begin
>bashing WinNT and 2K for faults of 9x. We have to continually explain
>to them that, yes, NT/2K do have a fully 32-bit pre-emptive multitasking
>kernel and yes, they do have a fully virtualized memory space, and yes,
>they do have a full security implementation including process isolation,
>required user-logon and pervasive security checking at all levels just
>like in Unix, only better.
But its still Windows on top of a VMS-like OS! Even if the kernel is
more stable, it sucks rocks. Its been very entertaining reading your
wriggling, though. I think I'm finally beginning to enjoy having you
around, Chad. You're so much more obviously full of shit than the other
trolls.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:35 GMT
Said Johan Kullstam in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 30 Jan 2001
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> they do have a full security implementation including process isolation,
>> required user-logon and pervasive security checking at all levels just
>> like in Unix, only better.
>
>except that they are more awkward. that is why so many run NT as
>"administrator". NT doesn't have the equivalent of unix' su. i
>understand w2k has fixed this.
Not at all. you can use a 'runas' command, but that isn't at all the
same as having su. I imagine you can even run a command shell as a root
or other user, but even that isn't the same thing as su.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:37 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:07:30
>"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> > they do have a full security implementation including process isolation,
>> > required user-logon and pervasive security checking at all levels just
>> > like in Unix, only better.
>>
>> except that they are more awkward. that is why so many run NT as
>> "administrator". NT doesn't have the equivalent of unix' su.
>
>Well, technically, it did. You could spawn processes as different
>users (including a shell), there are several free tools including
>some from the resource kit which provide the same functionality
>as su.
It does not provide the same functionality as su, though its not
surprising you're either confused or dissembling on that point.
>Win2K ships with it, while NT did not, but they weren't that hard
>to obtain in the first place.
Nor could they make either OS truly multi-user. One would hope that, if
these were competitive products, they might take advantage of the fact
that a microcomputer does not necessarily benefit from the multi-user
methods of Unix-style OSes, instead of constantly failing to even
recognize the distinction, let alone take advantage of it.
>> i understand w2k has fixed this.
>
>Didn't really "fix" anything, just made it more convenient.
More convenient to tolerate it being unfixable, in this regard. But as
Windows gets more Unix-like, it become ever more obvious how really
crappy it is in comparison.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:39 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:07:46
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> ***TEST***
>> Write one very simple program in C which computes all prime
>> numbers between 1 and 100,000,000. Don't do anything but
>> compute your prime numbers and display them to the screen.
>> Drive IO tends to scew this test.
>>
>> Next, create a dos batch to launch this program 4 times,
>> each displaying the results in a dos box.
>>
>> If you have a true multitasking OS, you should see program
>> 1 finish before 2 and so on. It should start and end
>> in the sequence 1,2,3,4....
>>
>> Windows can't do that.
>>
>> Linux can. Linux is true multitasking.
>>
>> This IS a crucial reason why when the going get's
>> tuff, Windows just bluescreens.
>
>Bullshit.
>
>Here is the code:
>
>#include <stdio.h>
[...]
>}
>
>Here is the batch file:
>start prime
>start prime
>start prime
>start prime
What is this 'start'? Wouldn't a batch file just be:
prime
prime
prime
prime
?
>Now, run it and you'll notice that 4 will tend to long before 3,2,1.
>According to Charlie this is a sign that Windows can't multi task.
>What he forgot is that Windows tend by default to give the window in front
>more priority than those in the background, it improve performance for the
>user.
>Because of the way the batch file is built, you will notice that the last
>window that opens manage to compute much more higher number much sooner than
>the other 3 windows, that is because it has focus.
Good point. But don't all SMT systems give priority to the "foreground"
application? Isn't the point of the exercise related to the fact that
it is the prime computations which are supposed to be time consuming?
Shouldn't it be finished 4,1,2,3, rather than 4,3,2,1 if your theory is
true?
>Move the focus to the first window and watch how it slowly climb to the top.
The fact that the GUI is extraordinarily slow to respond when the
computer is being intensively used again raises the question of just how
bad Windows multitasking is.
>You've either to change the computer's setting (from Applications to
>Background Proccesses) or put all those windows in the background.
And if all the windows are in the background, shouldn't it then finish
1,2,3,4, according to your theory, and 4,3,2,1 according to Charlie?
Where is this "Applications or Background Processes" switch setting?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:41 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:38:54
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Chad Myers wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The SMP design still (in 2.4) lacks behind most other
>> > > > SMP implementations out there.
>> > >
>> > > Such as?
>> >
>> > NT 4.0, Windows 2000, most higher grade Unixes such as Solaris and
>> > AIX, and several others. Basically, the big boys.
>>
>> You've just proved my point.
>>
>> First of all, don't include your pc operating system
>> in the same sentence as Unix, it just makes you
>> look silly.
>
>Should be the other way around.
>
>Reference: tpc.org
>
>Windows 2000 owns #1 - #4. Unix is silly.
Windows 2000 *clusters* are in first through fourth on that list, Chad.
As has already been pointed out to you, every other system on the list
is a single Unix box. I hesitate only slightly to use the words
"pathetic lying sack of shit" when referring to you, Chad, but it will
become more common, I think, if you continue to prove that you are a
pathetic lying sack of shit.
I'd say "Thanks for your time; hope it helps", but what I would really
mean is "go away, you moron." So I'll just say that, then.
Go away, you moron.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:43 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:25:05
[...]
>> Windows requires massive shared nothing clustering
>> to crawl into the "big leagues".
>>
>> Unix does not.
>
>Unix cost *much* more, and gives *much* less.
High-end computers cost much more. Unix is much less expensive. You're
confusing the price of a PC with the price of Windows (other than
retail, or very large corporate accounts, in which it effectively ranks
as the most expensive OS ever conceived). A HP-UX box or a Solaris
workstation or server is going to cost you a bit more than a PC, sure.
But Unix is available for the PC. You can even run Solaris86, and I
hear they pretty much give that away for free. If it weren't for the
application barrier illegaly built by Microsoft, Windows would still
cost much less than Unix, naturally; the only difference is, nobody
would buy it, anyway.
>So I can either buy several computers running Win2K, or a single Unix box.
Or even more PCs running Linux, which is far more stable and provides
higher performance and reliability than Win2K. You could even cluster
them, and build yourself a super-cheap super-computer.
>I will spend *more* on the Unix than on the 2K solution, and I'll get much
>less.
No, a Unix *solution* like a Solaris or HP-UX or even AIX box (if you're
lucky enough to not trip over any "we are IBM" AIX glitches; good thing
they're throwing their full weight behind Linux) gives you much more
than any Windows/PC solution. In most cases, of course, a typical
consumer can 'beat the game' by going with a Linux/PC solution, if they
don't get stopped by the illegal application barrier which Microsoft has
purposefuly erected to maintain their monopoly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:44 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:20:57
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > Is it true that windows 2000 finally got filesystem quotas
>> > > somewhat similar to what Linux has had for years?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> > Is it true that Linux finally got the SMP support that NT had for years?
>>
>> Linux has had smp support since version 1.1.31.
>
>And it was *bad*.
>
>> That was ~1995.
>
>NT had it since 3.1 (from the start, that is).
And it was *vapor*.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:46 GMT
Said nuxx in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:31:03 +0800;
>"Champ Clark III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> You still dodged something here. That was quota's that
>> got this little thing going. I'll bet that quota'ing is in more
>> use then say, hrmm.. Mulit-CPU's? Hell, Novell has quota's!
>> VMS has had quotas for years! I can't even think of a *nix that
>> doesn't have a quota'ing system for it...... What took so long?
>>
>In my opinion, quotas aren't nearly as important as fine grained ACLs in the
>corporate world (where NT was initially targeted).
In my _professional_ opinion, quotas are much more important to anyone
and everyone in the corporate world than fine-grained ACLs. The
corporate world doesn't have time to implement fine-grained ACLs. They
also don't have time to not implement quotas.
>NTs file sharing
>security model was designed with complex workgroups in mind rather than a
>bunch of home directories as used in, say, the academic world.
Idealism aside, NTs "security model" was bolted onto a 'gotta capture
the market' file-sharing system that wasn't even very usable in small
workgroups, and has consistently proven problematic in complex
workgroups. Rhetoric aside, it is a change from a host-based computing
environment to a PC scenario that makes the difference, not any
distinction between academic and corporate approaches. Not that there
aren't differences in such approaches. Perhaps you should have said
"the home directories I used while I was in college", rather than to
pretend you've an eye for 'the academic world'.
>You are
>right though, Novell has had both for years and MS really should have
>included quotas much earlier, if not from the start.
While its certainly nice that you agree, I think the real question is
"then why did it take so long?"
I don't think either Champ or nuxx are familiar with the bet that
Giuliano and I have in alt.destroy.microsoft. The reason I ask is that
Giuliano believes that they do things like this out of pure
incompetence, while I am of the opinion that there is typically some
purposeful predatory intent involved. Admittedly, throwing up your
hands and blaming some vague lack of ability is a great deal easier, you
would think, but its surprising how often there seems some 'reward' to
Microsoft, from their monopoly position, which accrues to counter some
imaginary loss of revenue they might theoretically lose if they didn't
cater to their customer's desires in things like this.
Just why wouldn't it have been both obvious and trivial for Microsoft to
add a feature that a system they were publicly trying to compete with
had and which was putatively widely desired?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:48 GMT
Said nuxx in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:21:27 +0800;
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> I've worked at more sites than I can count. Unix's traditional
>> owner/group/other scheme has been sufficient every place I've been at...
>> even though every commercial version of Unix out there offers ACL's,
>> I have NEVER once seen a system in the corporate world using them.
>>
>I'm not doubting your background or experiences, but if you've ever worked
>on a large scale industrial project involving sensitive information from
>multiple departments in multiple companies, you'd understand why fine
>grained ACLs are absolutely vital.
Apparently you're doubting his background or experience, then, eh?
>You really need greater power than
>owner/group/other in many situations (I do realise that Unix can to this -
>interesting that you've never seen it).
Apparently you're hypothesizing. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to a
real-world "large scale industrial project" in which you've implemented
fine grained ACLs to accomplish something that would not have been
possible with standard permissions? Or was this just a textbook
exercise which you *presumed* would translate into the real world?
>> NT *needs* ACL's because it lacks the traditional Unix scheme.
>>
>Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the traditional Unix file sharing
>model is better than NT or Netware?
Certainly better than NT, yes, obviously. Netware is a different
approach, and truth-to-tell, for local file sharing, it really is better
than NFS or any other Unix method, at least in a PC environment.
>> M$ should have done a LOT of things...but that would require a commitment
>> to quality, and M$'s business model is built around sand-bagging the
>> products.
>>
>The current crop of Unices weren't built in a day, or a decade for that
>matter.
Nevertheless, they started ahead of Microsoft, and they have always been
ahead of Microsoft.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:23:50 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:38:16
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >
>> > > > > Is it true that windows 2000 finally got filesystem quotas
>> > > > > somewhat similar to what Linux has had for years?
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes.
>> > > > Is it true that Linux finally got the SMP support that NT had for years?
>> > >
>> > > Linux has had smp support since version 1.1.31.
>> > >
>> > > That was ~1995.
>> >
>> > Very poor SMP at that.
>>
>> But it worked, and unlike windows, it kept getting better!
>>
>> > It didn't get half-way respectable SMP until 2001.
>>
>> Didn't they smoke windows nt in 4-way specweb
>> back in the summer of 2000?
>
>Smoke? 3%? Not really. And that was using kernel
>trickery.
Smoke, 250%. Yes, really. And the one several months later was after
Microsoft "used trickery", while Linux continued to use none, and
Windows still lost by 3%.
To unsnip the most relevant line, which of course you didn't feel the
desire to repeat:
>>Face it chad, you're cornered and you're stuttering.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:25:34 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > This is of course not true, the "my cat fluffy" nonsense seems
> > to be Chad's standard response to the facts of web server
> > market share.
>
> Well, we know for a fact that they're not major business sites,
> so we can assume that if their not major business sites, or don't
> have large amounts of traffic, they're probably not major sites.
We know no such thing, it's purely a groundless allegation
on your part. Hey, nice touch there, carefully snipping my
reference to the major web site that moved from nt to Unix,
which I worked with and know about.
> We also know that Netcraft does not distinguish between virtual
> hosts and servers, which dramatically inflates the numbers.
So, if a Unix server can handle 2000 websites, while a windows
pc server can handle only 1, that's somehow a victory in your
mind for windows? quite an interesting point of view.
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
