Linux-Advocacy Digest #996, Volume #31 Mon, 5 Feb 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Linux performance results (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is a fad? (mlw)
Re: Gates Vaccine (mlw)
Re: win2k -> linux (Black Dragon)
Re: The Wintrolls ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awful ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Ben Reiter)
Re: Linux is awful ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Jason Weingard")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Jason Weingard")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 02:17:52 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 5 Feb 2001 05:24:59
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > How many $$$$$$$$$$$ extra did you have to spend to get this
>1960's-era
>> > > capability
>> >
>> > With NT4 and W2k (and 3.51 I think) you can easily use a remote console
>> > session to do command line administration. With W2k server you can also
>use
>> > Terminal Services to do remote GUI administration tasks. These are
>standard
>> > tools supplied by Microsoft as part of Server versions of their OS. No
>> > extra cash required.
>>
>> Please elaborate on this remote console capability of NT4. I never saw
>> it except through third party tools. The closest you could get was the
>> MS telnet server, which most definitely did not come with NT4, and was in
>> fact labelled beta until 2k came out.
>
>Terminal Services.
You don't seem to understand, Ayende: the phrase 'terminal services' has
no meaning in a Windows environment. Windows PCs aren't like Unix
hosts; they literally do not have, and cannot provide, terminal
services.
What Microsoft calls "terminal services" is a hack which allows a second
desktop UI across a TCP/IP connection. (TCP/IP being what it is, this
means it allows a third, a fourth, and a hundredth, should you find some
magical way to have sufficient resources and be silly enough to try it.)
Its 'partitioning' of the OS, as opposed to the time-sharing of Unix's
multiple shell access; a limited version of the Citrix/Winframe-style
system.
The only difference between this and PC Anywhere is that the 'Windows
terminal server' approach has a virtual session being transferred across
the network, instead of the "real" desktop.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Linux performance results
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 02:47:11 GMT
This just came in from Byte.com. It was mentioned
on slashdot.
Linux (2.4 kernel) FreeBSD (4.1.1)
Incoming e-mail: 317 mails/sec 289 mails/sec
Mail relaying: 182 mails/sec 214 mails/sec
Fetchmail POP3: 92 mails/sec 98 mails/sec
Fetchmail and incoming together: 17 mails/sec 15 mails/sec
FreeBSD had always been the worlds fastest operating system
for Intel PC's. It still clearly is in this performance
comparison.
But Linux under the 2.2 kernels the performance of Linux was half
that of FreeBSD and 1/3 to double that of NT.
Under the 2.4 kernel they show Linux just slightly behind in overall
average. It may be a tie if they averaged in NFS performance which
Linux always won at with FreeBSD.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 21:59:44 -0500
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Translation: Spend $15 "upgrading" to a USB mouse rather than simply
> > buying a $3 ATX keyboard/mouse extension cord
>
> Someone who writes drivers for both PS/2 and USB mice predicts that in 2
> years, USB mice will totally replace the PS/2 mice. I don't agree with
> this. For one, how do we know USB will still be around 2 years from
> now?
USB is likely to be around, there is industry support behind it.
I can see using USB mice, this would free up IRQ 12 for a SCSI adapter or
something. I can see USB keyboards with USB Mice to have more than one user
terminal per machine. One could have multiple video cards, keyboards, and mice
to make a multiple user graphical system.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gates Vaccine
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:10:11 -0500
Nick Condon wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mlw) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >> Ooops... Silly me was thinking we were talking about the present.
> >>
> >> Turns out we were talking about the past!
> >
> >Do you really think there is a difference? Have you learned nothing from
> >history?
>
> I learned 2 things from my high school history lessons: boredom can't kill
> you; and history *doesn't* repeat itself (but historians *do* repeat each
> other).
The actual events may never repeat, but circumstances are astonishingly
repetitive. The history of human motivations, politics, money, and power is the
most valuable lesson of today and the future. Those who think otherwise will
always fail.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Black Dragon)
Subject: Re: win2k -> linux
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:09:15 GMT
On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 01:52:31 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Charlie Ebert' said:
I've been paying close attention to the `good ink` being posted here
about...
: Use Debian.
...so I downloaded the 3 binary cd images (using the Debian pseudo image
kit, which is _real_slick_, btw) and installed it this weekend.
: It's much easier to use.
YES, it is! (and the install was a walk in the park)
: Your Welcome
Thank you. :-)
: Charlie
--
Black Dragon
Sign The Linux Driver Petition:
http://www.libralinux.com/petition.english.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:12:53 GMT
On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:31:48 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Do you use them all? Are any of them as good as, say Britannica?
They each have their ups and downs depending upon what information is
needed. Britannica has the multimedia stuff, but for just plain cold
facts Groliers and Comptons seem best.
>You spend time reading software boxes?
I don't have to.
I run Windows.
>Don't use Mandrake, then. Simple, really.
Someone suggested we are the only ones having troubles. I offered
proof that contradicts that statement.
>So you install it and then do what if you never use it. Also, you install
>it every time someone posts on cola? No wonder you're pissed off with it
>:-)
I play with it on occasion. Linux is just too crude for my tastes.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:15:38 GMT
On 5 Feb 2001 22:46:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>Hey claire, just for the sake of argument, try installing FreeBSD 4.2.
>>>It has full USB support, etc. Id love to see what happens when you
>>>attempt to install another flavor of UNIX.
>
>> AIX is a piece of cake to install on an SP/2, including Perspectives
>> and pssp code.
>
>I didnt say AIX, you retarded piece of ass cheese. I said FREEBSD.
You said and I quote "ANOTHER FLAVOR OF UNIX".
>I know EXACTLY how easy AIX is to install. I also know how easy Solaris
>and HP/UX are to install. MacOS is very easy too. I'm not talking
>about any of those.
No you don't.
You don't have a clue.
>Again you ignore that which you cannot face, including the post where
>I asked you to provide proof that I said my girlfriend lives in the
>hamptons, AND the post after that asking once again.
You said. it.
Prove you didn't.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:15:48 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/5/01 3:46 PM:
>>
>> IBM keyboards are the best IMHO...at least the 80s ones anyway.
>>
>
> The keyboard on the original PC is about the worst in the history of
> computing. The vic-20 had a superior keyboard.
I was quite saddened when my PS/2 port died recently on my PC and I couldn't
use my sturdy old IBM keyboard anymore. Still as a testament to the
manufacturing, the keyboard which is older than my comp anyway outlived the
port to which it was attached.
-G3
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:17:24 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cerberus AOD at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/5/01 3:41 PM:
> No. I went from NT4 to NT5 and plug&play and an integrated active desktop is
> about the most difference I see, along w/ USB devices working. And it is
> actually more stable than even NT4. Only my video card will lock it up (due to
> trying to overclock it). I can go through and find about everything I had in
> NT4
> that 9x didn't have, so I have noticed little else.
I had actually been referring to the fact that the core OS is completely
different: IE the stuff you CAN'T see. I for one love the idea of NT's
guts, with 98's functionality.
(Just wish they had Personal Websharing for it. )
-g3
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:19:33 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron R. Kulkis at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 2/5/01 3:18 PM:
>> His Mac was to be a sub 1000 dollar machine and he opposed GUI because it
>> required expensive components that would greatly increase the cost of the
>> machine.
>
>
> That's because GUI's are RESOURCE-HOGS
>
> You think all those pretty pixels get painted for free?
>
> They take memory, and computational cycles.
Yes and in 84 that mattered, that was as a matter of fact 17 years ago. In
the time we have shrunk the space needed to house a super computer into a 9
inch cube. I think I can afford the resources in return for ease of use and
productivity.
-g3
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:22:48 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron R. Kulkis at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 2/5/01 3:14 PM:
> Well, I don't know where they went to school..
> but at Purdue, the FIRST thing the profs always discussed in a programming
> assignment was "what resources do we have available"
>
> Conversely, the CS profs always assumed virtually infinite resources.
They went to RPI.
> You must be the ****ONLY*** person in the WHOLE FREAKING WORLD whose
> PS/2 keyboard wasn't detected during a Linux install.
> 12x ATAPI CD-ROM not detected???
> I'm not buying THAT load of horse-shit either,
Actually if I recall specifics it wasn't detected under X-Windows, I seem to
recall being able to get at it from a text prompt.
> How exactly did you get the install-CD going if the CD-ROM wasn't recognized?
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
With some stupid boot disk they sent with it.
>> that'd be at least a feasible task, still even the ABIT motherboard is
>> pretty normal so I'm fairly disappointed the thing didn't go smoother than
>> it did.)
>
> Just fuck off and die, asshole.
Yep this folks is exactly why linux will NEVER be a consumer OS, its
progenitors insist that if you don't know all its ins and outs like they do
your problems simply can't exist.
-G3
------------------------------
From: Ben Reiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:25:09 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, G3
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was quite saddened when my PS/2 port died recently on my PC and I
> couldn't
> use my sturdy old IBM keyboard anymore. Still as a testament to the
> manufacturing, the keyboard which is older than my comp anyway outlived
> the
> port to which it was attached.
Ah, the IBM M-series ;) the massive clicky monstrosity that strikes
fear into the hearts of LAN gamers everywhere... Between that and the
Apple USB Extended II, The Just Don't Make 'Em Like That Anymore.
The good news, for anyone living near a large university, is that you
can usually find both in quantity at the property disposition yards.
I've got quite a few Extended II's and M-series that were 5USD at
Michigan State's salvage yard. Worth looking into - if you need
another, let me know and I'll send you ten ;)
\Ben
--
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard
those who think alike than those who think differently" - Nietzche
"Think Different" - Apple
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 6 Feb 2001 03:29:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2001 22:46:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>>Hey claire, just for the sake of argument, try installing FreeBSD 4.2.
>>>>It has full USB support, etc. Id love to see what happens when you
>>>>attempt to install another flavor of UNIX.
>>
>>> AIX is a piece of cake to install on an SP/2, including Perspectives
>>> and pssp code.
>>
>>I didnt say AIX, you retarded piece of ass cheese. I said FREEBSD.
> You said and I quote "ANOTHER FLAVOR OF UNIX".
I said this: (quoted from above)
>>>>Hey claire, just for the sake of argument, try installing FreeBSD 4.2.
>>>>It has full USB support, etc. Id love to see what happens when you
>>>>attempt to install another flavor of UNIX.
As you can clearly see, I specified FREEBSD, you pathetic fool.
And again, you wont even attempt it. The reason why you wont even
attempt it is that you do not actually UNDERSTAND UNIX. Maybe you
can get that guy that writes your posts for you once in a while to help
out.
Seriously claire, installing FreeBSD is not rocket science. Its actually
pretty straightforward, but you do have to understand drive partitioning,
TCP/IP and general network services to do it.
All of which you've told us all you understand. So do it. Id like to
see what your take on the BSD family is.
>>I know EXACTLY how easy AIX is to install. I also know how easy Solaris
>>and HP/UX are to install. MacOS is very easy too. I'm not talking
>>about any of those.
> No you don't.
Thats some argument.
Actually I do, because I got to learn all about it some time ago when
I was responsible for making a system that manages satellite channel
downlinking work for a national cable company. Its AIX based. Why
dont you impress the hell out of the class and tell me what the management
software is. (theres only one possibility---it was not custom)
> You don't have a clue.
I do, actually. This is my field.
It isnt your field though, quite apparantly. In fact, im pretty sure
at this point that you dont even HAVE a field, and that youre simply
a pathetic moron who's semi-decent at using Google.
>>Again you ignore that which you cannot face, including the post where
>>I asked you to provide proof that I said my girlfriend lives in the
>>hamptons, AND the post after that asking once again.
> You said. it.
I didnt say it.
> Prove you didn't.
I just perused Dejanews and couldnt find ANYWHERE where I said
that my girlfriend lives in the hamptons.
Since you are the accusor, why dont YOU prove it? Give me a deja
URL please.
Go on, claire. Give me the URL, right here in public. Show everyone
that you WERENT LYING AGAIN.
Unless you were lying again. In that case, feel free to do what you
always do; attempt sophomoric smokescreens by attempting (badly)
to divert attention away from your lies.
=====.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:29:09 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Ammon at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 2/5/01 2:43 PM:
> I'm reading "Infinite Loop" by Michael Malone, and it specifically
> mentions Insanely Great and Accidental Empires as being based on a false
> story written up by Apple's PR department, and then proceeds to debunk
> the myth. (If you like books detailing Apple's history, you'll enjoy
> Infinite Loop...it's very well done and complete.)
Um both, especially Accidental Millionaire, have a fair about of bad PR.
0_0
(Mind you I've also read Steve Jobs and the NeXT insanely great thing or
something like that, and that takes a LOT of digs at Jobs specifically. )
> I guess I shouldn't say that you're simply "wrong on Jobs." The visit
> has turned into a legend, and we may never know for sure what actually
> happened. But the book I mention has some good points as to why the
> original explanation is implausible, and advances its own theory, which
> I find to be much more likely.
Knowing Jobs penchant for dissing something repeatedly and then acting like
he came up with it, I think its perfectly logical that he was reassured by
Atkinson et al into taking a look at PARC, then turned around , invested in
Xerox to orchestrate the visit, and pretended like it was his idea to check
PARC out in the first place.
Hell Jobs said the mac was the stupidest idea he'd ever heard for eons
before he decided it was the bees knees and promptly stole the project from
him.
-G3
------------------------------
From: "Jason Weingard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 22:04:05 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Unknown Poster wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Microsoft is the one who's been in Fed court too many times to
mention.
> > >
> > > I don't think Dell's been ever charged with criminal conduct.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Pish-tosh..It's sour grapes from competitors.
>
> 30 States' Attorneys disagree.
>
>
> >
> > I can't wait until the appeal from Thomas P. Jackson's
> > court is heard. Microsoft is going to win big here.
>
> Microsoft is only appealing the *sentance* ***NOT*** the conviction for
> illegal, criminal conduct.
>
> If Microsoft is innocent, then why are they letting the conviction stand?
> Hmmmmmmmmmmm?!?!?!?!?!
>
>
>
>
> --
I asked my neighbor, the attorney. He replied that in
it's far easier (and cheaper and faster) to
appeal the Sentence, rather than the conviction. Businesses
do not usually appeal sentences because it can drag out
for years.
------------------------------
From: "Jason Weingard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:59:44 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Some guy who doesn't want his name associated with his line of bullshit
wrote:
Check the name now. I put my name up.
> >
> >
<snip>
> >
> > As I said, I've been working with Microsoft products since very
> > early in the days of MS-DOS. I used to attend my training IN Redmond.
>
> Translation: "I have been thoroughly brainwashed for about 15 years now"
>
Just like every Unixhead I've ever known, brainwashed into thinking
that their particular 'flavor' is superiour. If it's not AIX, then it's
Solaris
or HP-UX or BSD. Heck, I know some who still swear by SCO-Unix.
I used to be a DEC-VMS head, then I wised up and saw the
direction the industry was headed. I started with Netware, and
I cursed 4.x with every other one. I cursed NT 3.1, and 3.51 but I got
them stable and running by sticking with it and actually *learning*
something
about the OS.
>
> > I am probably more intimately familiar with their
> > products than 90% of the MCSE's out there. Windows is
> > no more unreliable than Netware or Unix.
>
> Then why does Kmart need a staff of 20 highly-trained and Microsoft
> credentialed Windows specialists just to develop stable desktop
> configurations made ENTIRELY of business grade software?
>
Not being familiar with the situation, I don't know. We have a Legal
database that will only run on Oracle for Netware. Not Oracle for Unix,
or Oracle for NT. It's all in how the application is written.
> The fact is, Microsoft's OS model is: as long as every program is
> *perfectly* well-behaved, things are OK....
>
> Of course, if Application #1 and Application #2 have a difference of
> opinion of which version of a DLL to use, the foundation-level
> assumption has just been contradicted, and now the whole thing is
> a pile of shit.
>
Then your application programmers need to get together and write
good code.
>
> > > >There were problems, true, with early versions, but if
> > > >you kept up with the updates and Service Packs, you ended up
> > > >fine.
> > >
> > > This doesn't make sense. If you keep up with service packs implies
> > > that what you had prior to the service pack was not fine.
> > >
Note, that I said 'You ended up fine', not that you 'started out fine.'
> >
> > Gee, why do you patch HP-UX, or AIX, or the AS/400 OS, or
> > any other? Because none of them are *perfect*, and they all have
> > problems. I see more Linux/Unix problems being posted than I do
> > Win2K these days.
>
> That's because the Unix/Linux community is more interested in FIXING
> problems than hiding them.
>
> Ever notice who Microsoft *NEVER* admits that a problem exists until
> a couple hours after they release the patch for it?
>
> In other words...when Microsoft denies that a problem exists, they
> have absolutely ZERO credibility, because all that denial means is:
> "We haven't written a patch for it yet"
No, it means that, like any company worth it's salt, they don't admit that
what every Tom, Dick, and Harry says is a 'problem' they announce to
the world before investigating. During the course of the investigation, if
it
is truly a problem, a 'fix' is created and the official word is given.
I apologize for not being clear; I see more bugs being reported by
every Tom, Dick and Harry in computerland for Unix, Linux, BSD,
Solaris, etc.--individually--than I do for Windows 2000.
>
> Conversely, EVERY Unix vendor I know sends out notices INFORMING
> their customer base of known deficiencies and shortcomings as soon
> as such information becomes known.
>
> >
So, the newspaper should report a fire at address X, when in fact
there was none? (In case you haven't guessed, I'm using analogy here
to describe a hypothetical situation. We'll say Microsoft is the
newspaper, and the fire is the software bug.) I don't think so.
However, noting that you say the 'vendor' informs the customer
base 'as soon as such information becomes known', are you implying
that you receive a notice from your vendor, the same time the deficiency
is noted on BugTraq? I'm sure there is sufficient lag for the vendor to
examine the deficiency and determine if it truly exists or not. If it
exists,
then they notify the customer base.
So, Microsoft waits a short period of time, I'd rather be certain, than
have Chicken Little shouting "The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling."
<snip>
> > > >The *only* times they have been taken down for the last 3 years is to
> > > >load Service Packs or Patches, or because of hardware problems.
<snipped extraneous information>
> >
> > I don't get BSOD's on the NT Servers, because I know what I am doing.
>
> Translation: "I reboot at 0800, 1200, and 1700 hours every business day."
>
You'll note that I said they have *only* been taken down for Service Packs,
patches, or due to hardware failure. I have my equipment tuned and running
smoothly. But, I have the benefit of experience and real training in the
products,
not two weeks in a boot camp, or 2 years in a Tech School with no real world
experience. I cut my teeth in the Military on DEC equipment, and ran several
Vax systems at a University for several years.
<snip>
> > >
> >
> > No, I didn't NT is just as stable as Unix or Netware. In the two years
since
> > I joined the firm, they have had 0 BSOD's on their NT servers. I spent a
lot
> > of hours early on tweaking and tuning them just right. There is more to
NT
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Microsoft claims that this is unnecessary.
>
I have often heard this, but no one has ever been able to back it up
with absolute proof.
>
> However, The Unix community has NEVER claimed that administrating
> computers is a simple task.
>
And it isn't. We agree here.
.
> >
> > Not for me it isn't. I've been running it in my test lab at home since
> > the earliest Beta's. I love it. I can't wait until we migrate.
>
> Then why won't you sign your name to your posts?
> Hmmmmmmm?
>
I usually don't, in order to avoid getting Unsolicited Mail. But I have
this time.
> The point is...why do you tolerate such poor reliability?
>
I have never had to reinstall NT 4.0 to fix a problem. Remove
and reinstall a previous version of a 3rd party application, or
an older driver, yes. But never the OS.
> >
> > Sure you do. We had an MMS software database upgrade that killed one
> > of our Unix Servers. Everything worked fine on the test server, but when
we
> > put it into production, we were sunk. As it turned out, the Unixheads
had
> > loaded a recent patch to both servers, but loaded it to the Test server
> > *after* we had performed the upgrade. In testing, everything was fine.
We
> > then upgraded the Production server and everything went south on us. The
> > vendor hadn't tested the software with the most recent HP-UX patches. In
> > fact, they were 3 patch levels behind--a fact they neglected to inform
> > us of.
>
> In other words, an outrageous problem which is TYPICAL in MS-land is
> a noteworthy aberation in the Unix commmunity.
>
> Thanks for making our point, mr. too-ashamed-to-sign-my-name.
>
> >
> > It was down for a week, and cost a few hundred K
> > in idle time across the country.
>
> Down for a week?
>
> What a load of horse shit.
>
> Rolling everything back by recovery from the previous night's backup
> tapes should take no more than several hours at worst.
It took them a week to figure out that the HP-UX patch
was the problem. The trouble was, the Unixheads restored
the OS, but as soon as the MMS developers loaded the
application, it took a dump. Since we had about 2000 systems
out there with the new version of the application--that was
incompatible with the old version-- we had to watch the
finger pointing by both sides for a week, until the MMS
developers finally talked to someone at their home office
who had experienced this. The Unixheads rolled the servers
back to the version of the OS *prior* to the patch, the developers
reloaded the package, then the Unix patch was applied.
>
> > We opted to move to a different MMS
> > vendor at that point, and just completed the implementation last year.
> > Oh, it is now an Oracle database running on NT. Peoplesoft gives us
> > problems as well. Bad third party applications exist everywhere.
>
> If the machine was down for more than one business day, I would
> call that deliberate sabotage by the IT staff.
Since none of us had any non-user rights on the Unix box, and
it in fact resided off-site, none of us could have touched it.
>
>
> >
> > > >If you keep it clean and neat, you'll be fine.
> > >
> > > In other words, if you don't use it for anything you'll be fine.
> >
> > No, don't load crapola on it; stay away from the crackware.
>
> When why is it such a problem even in companies that use business-grade
> commercial software?
>
> Evidently "crapola" is defined as "anything not written by Microsoft,
> and even some stuff that is!"
>
>
>
No, 'crapola' is anything not written to the proper programming
API's from Microsoft. It's the same for Unix software too. We are
scrapping a Solaris application for running one of our newly acquired
Wastewater plants due to unreliability. We're moving it to an Open-VMS
application we run in every other plant that we run.
My point is simply this: Bad software exists everywhere, and it's not always
the fault of the OS. I've had bad experiences with software running on
on every platform I've dealt with, from VMS to NT. Problems are
everywhere, but pointing fingers and shouting 'You don't play fair' isn't
the way to handle it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
