Linux-Advocacy Digest #18, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Feb 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: DOS2Unix ("Interconnect")
Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: More Mandrake Fun :( ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Josh McKee)
Re: DOS2Unix ("Interconnect")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Josh McKee)
Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is a fad? ("Interconnect")
Re: Does Code Decay (Bloody Viking)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Josh McKee)
Re: What's EF's explanation on this one? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Aaron R Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Does Code Decay (Bloody Viking)
Re: Font deuglification ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Josh McKee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOS2Unix
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:00:28 +1100
Well said! I salute you.
*ROUSING CHEER*
Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How can you not love Linux?
>
> I cut my teeth on DOS. In 1992 I was running a BBS on a Bullet-286 - an
> 80286 on an 8088 motherboard. I had 3 programs I just loved - WordStar,
> QuickDisk and SideKick. There were several things about this setup with
> which I was enamored. First, the WordStar control diamond. I can
> touch-type. I rarely need a mouse. Mice slow me down. Anything that
> takes my hand off the keyboard slows me down. Using the control diamond
> I could block, cut/copy and paste text like lightning. It was heaven.
> SideKick, a spartan editor, besides sharing WS's control diamond, was a
> TSR - Terminate and Stay Resident. So was QuickDisk, a somewhat
> graphical directory tree. Think 'ASCII FileManager'. TSRs were
> programs which loaded themselves into memory and waited for a 'hot-key'
> combination to call them forth. In those days, under DOS versions 3
> through 5, that meant that you could bring SK or QD up without exiting a
> running application, say, TASM, Turbo-C or Telix. It was the closest
> thing to multi-tasking available in the DOS world at the time.
>
> But I wanted more. For one thing, there was 1024k of RAM in the Bullet
> motherboards, but DOS could only access the lower 640k. That meant that
> there was 384k of memory that could still be used. How I lusted after
> that inaccessible memory! I even went so far as to write assembly
> programs to address the space. Alas, the documentation and my skills
> were so poor that all I ever managed to do when executing one of these
> routines was lock the machine up tight.
>
> From time to time I offered 'doors' on the BBS. These allowed people to
> shell out of the BBS software and interact with a program in DOS. The
> programs they could access were a couple of cheesy, mildly amusing AI
> routines. Now, the BBS software echoed characters to the screen, so I
> could see what people were doing when they were online. (Sorry, but
> that was most of the reward of running a BBS. Trust me, I never sold
> anyone's reading/posting habits) But the doors didn't echo characters
> to the local screen. I couldn't understand this. Finally, someone
> explained it to me. Because one DOS program (the BBS) was redirecting
> another DOS program to the serial port, it couldn't simultaneously
> redirect it to the console. There weren't enough 'pipes' or something.
> (Hey, I'm not an OS hacker, I took the explanation at that and didn't
> try to understand it more fully.)
>
> Now imagine, as I have been doing for the last couple of weeks since
> this idea occurred to me. What if, somehow, I had gotten Linux early in
> '92? I read a short history (http://www.li.org/linuxhistory.php) of
> Linux recently and so I know it was possible. I let my imagination run
> with it:
>
> Someone hands me Linux on diskettes. (I didn't have 'net access at the
> time, so I couldn't have Kermit'd it to a PC overnight) Then, somehow,
> I manage to scrounge up a 386 motherboard to run it on.
>
> Egads! Probably the first thing I would have done is port the BBS
> software. But beyond that! Hey-Seuss, to hell with TSRs!!! I could
> have run PROGRAMS in DIFFERENT Linux sessions! My God! What a
> revelation! I could have had the BBS running in the BACKGROUND
> (running, damnit, not suspended!) while I went ahead and used my
> computer to write ports of other applications or other nefarious deeds.
> The possibilities are endless!
>
> Phew!
>
> There are few things as satisfying to me as seeing Linux come up on
> humble Intel hardware (I'm talking 486/P90, here) like it's Solaris on a
> friggin' Sparc. I'm a propellor-head, I confess. The pretty MS logo
> and the clouds? You can keep 'em. I love seeing (of course, not very
> often ;) Linux boot up. Swap space being initialized, mounts being
> fsck'd, etc and so on. It's just way too cool. Like a silly little 486
> could be a real computer or something. And guess what - it is! That's
> the test, I guess. Can Win2k run on a 486 and just sit there unnoticed
> serving web pages, acting as a gateway/firewall, fetching mail, all
> while allowing someone in a terminal session to blithely hack away in an
> ASCII editor that doesn't try to save everything as a Word file?
>
> Bah!
>
> All I ever wanted to do was multi-task DOS, really. And that's where
> Microsoft went wrong, IMHO. They built up Windows and tried to hide
> DOS. They could have made DOS as powerful as any UNIX and sold Windows
> as an application. But no.
>
> Oh well.
>
>
> MjM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:16:48 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Cornell wrote:
>>
>> > mlw wrote:
>> > > (2)I can run an X program on any machine and display
>> > > its windows on any other machine. (MS can't even come close.)
>>
>> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I think you could argue that this is one area where
>> > the words "user friendly" have not come into it. Are
>> > there any apps that set this kind of thing up easily?
>>
>> If you use SSH, X-forwarding is set up automatically AND securely
>> (provided it's enabled, of course). It's an absolute no-brainer. It
>> even works using the Windows client, if the client machine is running
>> an X-server.
>
> Well, that is a good thing - I'll have a look at this thanks!
And don't forget to use ssh compression on dialup lines. It makes a
huge difference when running X clients (as I am right now :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More Mandrake Fun :(
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:34:56 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <95k1ms$95$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In article <m7hh59.s8b.ln@gd2zzx>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>> Frence?
>>>
>>> Is that near Eyetally?
>>>
>>> Oh, for what it is worth, I am from England.
>>
>> It's not worth a lot. The english are just american arse lickers.
>
> Mabey you should meet some people from England before talking out of your
> arse.
After finishing at university in Edinburgh the only option was to work
in England. I worked in England for over 10 years before escaping
Thatcherism by moving to Switzerland. I am still in contact with
friends from england.
>> Thank
>> goodness the Scots and the Welsh to a lesser extent are breaking away
>> from you. Sorry to all the sassenach friends I have but there is nothing
>> worse than a loud mouthed englishmen who doesn't know what he's talking
>> about.
>
> That generalises to `There's nothing worse than a loud mouth who doesn't
> know what he's talking about.'. English loudmouths are no worse than
> any other sort of loudmouths.
>
>> Ever been in a pub with a group of englishmen?
>
> Very frequently.
>
>> You can die of
>> thirst before they get up to buy a round.
>
> You go to the pub with the wrong kind of people then.
Being a Scot I would always offer to buy the first round when going to
a pub. In Scotland, if it is your round next you buy the round as soon
as someones glass is empty. Not so in England. Most English people
wait until their glass is empty before buying their round even when
other peoples glasses have been empty for ages. I quickly learned not
to buy the first round.
> Do I detect a hint of racism here?
Where does rascism come into this? I'm just stating a fact.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh McKee)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 01:02:56 GMT
On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:28:34 GMT, G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron R. Kulkis at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote on 2/6/01 12:45 AM:
>
>> In which case, its what we call in the military "Operator Headspace error"
>>
>> His implication was that the CD-ROM couldn't be detected because
>> of some fault of hte OS.
>>
>> Oh, he later claimed that [/dev/cdrom] could be found by the CLI, but
>> not by the GUI.
>>
>> UTTER FUCKING HORSESHIT.
>
>So far you've yet to substatiate a single claim for why linux is a consumer
>os, or why these problems occur.
So far you've built up this strawman arguement. I haven't read
anything (please point it out if I missed it) where he said it was a
consumer OS. I believe that you added that point.
>On the exact same machine win2k installed
>in like 45 minutes and I think asked me for all of my name, and to check the
>current date the whole time, that was upgrading the thing from 98, with the
>keep my apps option, and the switch drive to ntfs option.
>
>The only utter fucking horseshit is your potty mouth, and the fact that
>linux can't do shit without you writing a 14 page essay on exactly how it
>should do it and stashing it away in some obscure little directory.
I believe that you brought up Linux. He mentioned HPUX and Solaris.
Another strawman you created.
>>>> How exactly did you get the install-CD going if the CD-ROM wasn't
>>>> recognized?
>>>
>>> Uhm. The BIOS finds the CD, boots from the El Torito floppy image, and then
>>> that image loads a kernel which doesn't probe the CD? This can't happen
>>> to various users of various OS's more than a few thousand times a week.
>>
>> Not if the CD-ROM is installed correctly.
>
>Win2k no problems, Redhat AND Caldera (though Caldera was a fucking dream to
>install by comparison) nothing BUT problems.
Your story is difficult to believe. Not because you claim to have had
problems, but it appears to contradict what you said earlier.
>> RedHat...SuSE...Mandrake.
>>
>> Not a single failure to find the CD-ROM....EVER!
>
>That's splendid I'm happy for you, I think even windows is incredible when
>it works its the times it doesn't that count.
Let me ask you this: Do you think that your problem (Linux not finding
the keyboard, mouse, CD-ROM drive) is typical? I would say, assuming
you are telling the truth, that you are an exception instead of the
rule (at least for these three items).
>Still you can't do anything more than run about in denial saying "no its not
>possible linux really does blow bill gates nuts", and using insults in lieu
>of logic.
You're logic, or at least the validity of your story, is suspect.
Josh
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOS2Unix
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:05:23 +1100
Only problem is that you and others like you probably never USED Linux, as
your distinct lack of mental capacity never got you past the installation
stage.
Thankfully you can fall back on Windows.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 01:35:44 -0700, Mike Martinet
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >How can you not love Linux?
>
> Generally about an hour or so of using it is enough for most users to
> hate it.
>
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh McKee)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 01:09:20 GMT
On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:58:16 GMT, G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article 3a7f89df$0$26819$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Seebach at
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/6/01 12:21 AM:
>
>> Then you're forgetting one of the most common PC Unix problems; most
>> Unix-like systems politely ignore incorrectly jumpered drives - say, a
>> slave device on a channel with no master device.
>
>Actually now that you point that out I am very unhappy I hadn't thought of
>that. 0_0 I think, as I did switch the drives around in frustration, that I
>may have ended up accomplishing fixing that but I am positive thatıs how the
>cdrom was setup because I had just recently removed the second hard drive
>that was originally a slave to the one I was then installing linux on, I'd
>never moved the cdrom over.
In other words the problem was the result of something you did and not
a failing of Linux itself?
>>> How exactly did you get the install-CD going if the CD-ROM wasn't recognized?
>>
>> Uhm. The BIOS finds the CD, boots from the El Torito floppy image, and then
>> that image loads a kernel which doesn't probe the CD? This can't happen
>> to various users of various OS's more than a few thousand times a week.
>
>> Linux may not be as bad as that guy thought it was, but you sure aren't
>> impressing anyone by "debunking" a story which is fairly common and
>> well-understood.
>
>The install was treacherous, and for little benefit. Work already has
>serveral linux servers I can telnet to, I have yet to find a good reason to
>waste on e of my own machines on it. I do mostly graphic intensive stuff,
>90% mac based with Windows mostly around for compatibility testing.
IMO, unix is not a general purpose OS. It is an excellent backend
server OS. And that's what we were discussing in the initial thread. I
don't recall Aaron ever claiming that unix was an excellent
workstation OS. It's a strawman that you created.
>Still these linux idiots presume that just because all they do is write perl
>scripts all day to processes text files that no one else does anything
>requiring REAL graphics capabilities, like multiple monitors, color
>correction, video editing, image editing. Etc.
A strawman. We were discussing server work, not general workstation
work.
Josh
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows?
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 01:00:43 GMT
In article <95lvnd$es4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
gswork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Out of interest, having spent time time hacking Linux would coders love
> to see the behemoth code that lies underneath Windows?
I'd much rather attend an autopsy. Not as gruesome.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:16:20 +1100
But you are boring and a liar.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 08:04:14 -0800, Salvador Peralta
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] quoth:
> >
> >> FWIW I started back in the days of the IBM 1401 and have had my share
> >> of paper tapes snap and cause carriage runaways on 1403's.
> >
> >From the juvenile tone of most of your posts, age is something
> >that I'd be embarrassed to admit, were I in your shoes. Honestly, I
> >thought that you were 13 or 14 years old.
>
> It's a lot better than being boring.
>
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: 7 Feb 2001 01:14:38 GMT
Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I think in 20 years Wintendo(tm) will be recognized as the single one
: biggest errors in computing history.
System Error: Windows installed. Place Linux CD in drive and strike any key...
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh McKee)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 01:15:55 GMT
On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:41:38 GMT, G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J Sloan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
>2/5/01 11:56 PM:
>
>>> When I installed LINUX I spent like 1.5 hours just trying to find a mouse
>>> and keyboard it would recognize, then more time trying to get it to see a
>>> simple thing like a CD ROM, (it never did get the printer),
>>
>> So you're really slow - that doesn't make you a bad
>> person, it just means you ought to stay away from
>> computers.
>
>I love how you UNIX guys assume that just because you experts an UX never
>have problems no one else will, that alone is proof UX (aside from OS X)
>will never be a consumer OS.
No one is claiming that unix doesn't have problems. Especially Linux
on a PC. However, your story is very suspect.
>>> I remember I had
>>
>>> to restart like 4 times to get the monitor to install,
>>
>> Here's where you really went out into left field -
>> there is no restart in the Linux install procedure.
>
>I was dicking around with video setting trying to get my (it was some SVIRGE
>video card) to display the PROPER res. I tried moving the card around,
>which last time I checked requires restart.
So the problem wasn't with the OS but where the video card was seated?
Why is this an OS problem?
>>> the partition program
>>> kept fucking up, then the damn thing didn't want to connect to the LAN
>>
>> OK, this is definitely starting to sound like a scripted troll.
>>
>> As one who has been using Linux for a few years,
>> I can say that an install of say Red Hat on a recent
>> machine takes all of 45 minutes from booting the
>> install disk to a functional X desktop and full-on
>> network connectivity.
>
>Wow thatıs the same amount of time it took me to get win 2k to upgrade my 98
>drive, convert my programs (and weed out ones suspected to not work) and to
>reformat the drive to NTFS. No problems since either.
Try installing Solaris on a Sparc system. You'll find out how very
easy Solaris is to install.
Josh
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What's EF's explanation on this one?
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 01:15:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here goes: when formatting a floppy under Windows 98, one can't do
> anything else.
One can always go get a cup of coffee, grope the secretary, or catch up
on sleep.
Windoze may not be multitasking, but that doesn't mean I can't be.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Aaron R Kulkis
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 01:18:15 GMT
You're a pathetic little creep. You make a good argument for
retoractive abortion.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: 7 Feb 2001 01:30:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:34:00 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >Kind of like the nuclear-fission handgrenade, but without the benefits.
: ...they actually did make fission artillery shells...
And the Russians made briefcase nukes. (actually suitcase sized) Some of these
porta-nukes are floating around "missing" from the Russian stash. We Yanks
worked on a briefcase nuke but abandoned the idea.
It would be impossible to build a tactical nuclear weapon grenade unless you
could contain _antimatter_ due to the critical mass minimum size constraint.
Even if you could build such a grenade, you'd need a fastball pitcher to throw
it as it would at least pack the power of a Tim McVeigh bomb.
And you are correct in that they did build and test some tactical nuke
artillery shells.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Font deuglification
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 01:25:42 GMT
In article <95q3no$19g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just did the font deuglification on my X server
>
> The results look very good.
I just added a boatload of TrueType fonts to my RH7.0 box, and it was a
lot easier than the old HOWTO. Is there an updated de-ug HOWTO?
Oh yeah, looks great. Looked good before, looks better now.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh McKee)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 01:40:12 GMT
On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:47:35 -0500, "Unknown Poster"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><snip>
>> >
>> >
>> >My problem with everyone who whines and moans about Microsoft
>> >'not getting it right' is that they obviously don't have enough knowledge
>> >of the products.
>>
>> Or perhaps they have a lot of knowledge which has led them to conclude
>> that Windows is unrealiable?
>>
>
>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. 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.
In my experience unix has been much, much more reliable than Windows.
>> >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.
>>
>
>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.
But you said that the OS is fine, as long as you keep up with the
service packs. Installing service packs implies that the OS was not
fine before the service pack. Which is contradictory to what you
wrote.
>> >I run a WAN with 30 NT Servers, several of which have
>> >1000 or more users hitting them routinely. We're not talking file/print
>> >services here, either; I have Exchange, Oracle and MS-SQL servers.
>> >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.
>>
>> If they were running fine, then why bother installing the service
>> packs or patches?
>>
>For the same reason you patch any OS; Security Holes and potential
>problems.
"Potential problems" implies that there is a problem with the OS.
Which is contradictory to what you wrote.
>I've patched Oracle a few times, MS-SQL, Exchange, NT.
Why did you patch MS-SQL, Exchange and NT? According to you, they are
stable.
>I also forgot to mention our lovely problems with Citrix that require
>routine patches and updates.
I'm not interested in Citrix problems.
>Not to mention our 5 Netware servers that get patched routinely.
I'm not interested in Netware problems.
>Oh yeah, and the 6 HP-UX boxes running Peoplesoft
>and a custom billing application. The Unixheads have had them down for
>patches more in the last year than our NT boxes.
What was being patched? The OS or the applications? What do you mean
when you say "down"? Do you mean the OS failed? Do you mean that the
application failed?
>I've had the NT Boxes down exactly once for Service Packs. Exchange I have
>had down twice--SP 3 and SP4.
Service packs (note the plural) would denote more than "exactly once".
If you're installing a service pack, you have to reboot. Since you
installed services PACKS <<<---not the "S", you would have had to
reboot at least once for each service pack.
>MS-SQL has only been down a handful of times.
When did MS-SQL become an OS?
>The Oracle Boxes have had only their MMS software patched--about 10 times.
When did Oracle become an OS?
>I don't get BSOD's on the NT Servers, because I know what I am doing.
Other than install service packs and hot fixes, what are you doing
that other people aren't? I really would like to know because I can
pass it along so that we can experience the same level of stability
that you claim to experience.
>> >I've lost 2 Power Supplies, a NIC, and a motherboard. NT is just as
>> >stable as Unix or Netware.
>>
>> You lost all credibility with that last statement.
>>
>
>No, I didn't NT is just as stable as Unix or Netware.
Yes you did.
>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.
Tweaking and tuning what/how?
>There is more to NT just loading the software and the latest service pack;
Such as?
>just as there is more to Unix or Netware than loading the OS and connecting users.
I don't care about Netware...I've never used it, I don't have
experience with it, so I am not going to make comment on it.
>> >My Win 2K Test Labs have similar loads being
>> >simulated on them, and they're just as stable.
>>
>> The verdict is still out on Windows 2000.
>
>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.
It's much better than Windows NT. But better than unix? The verdict is
still out.
>> >The 5000 NT 4.0 workstations and laptops we are using have been as
>> >stable, with the exception of pushing Service Packs,or hardware problems.
>>
>> Again I ask: If they were so stable, then why bother with the service
>> packs?
>
>For the same reason you patch any OS; Security Holes and potential
>problems.
You see, I have a problem when you write "potential problem". That
implies that there are problems that are present until the service
pack is installed. But what about the "potential problems" that aren't
fixed by any service pack?
>> >The only products they haven't *gotten it right* with are the consumer
>> >versions, but I have Windows 95b running on a workstation at home that
>> >does nothing but play kids games from CD's. It never BSOD's on me. The
>> >Windows 98 SE and Windows ME workstations that I run here do, usually
>> >when I'm playing a game. If I'm using MS-Office, they're fine. It isn't
>the
>> >OS, it's poor programming of third party applications.
>>
>> Should Windows memory protection protect you from poor programming
>> practices? I'll have to say, Windows 9x/ME's implementation of memory
>> protection has a lot to be desired.
>>
>
>If there weren't poor programming practices, we wouldn't have need of the
>memory protection. Personally, I use Win 9x to play games on, and Win2K to
>do any real work. I usually write my adventures in Word on one of the 98 boxes
>here that has MS-Office on it. I don't have problems when running Microsoft
>products on it. If a problem does develop on the 9x boxes, I just nuke and reload.
>Nothing is lost because I partition the drives with a data side to hold data.
A good practice on your part. But why would you need to nuke and
reload? I can't recall the last time I had to re-install Solaris. In
fact, I don't believe that I ever have re-installed Solaris.
>> >So, when you say 'Microsoft can't get it right', take a long hard look at
>> >the application of their product. If you load every piece of crackware
>> >that comes out, I expect you to have problems.
>>
>> Why? If it is truely a robust operating system, this shouldn't be a
>> problem. With unix, I don't have to worry about loading software like
>> I do with Microsoft.
>>
>
>Sure you do. We had an MMS software database upgrade that killed one
>of our Unix Servers.
Exactly what do you mean when you say "killed"?
>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.
This doesn't make sense. You apparently didn't perform the test with
the same configuration. Who's fault is that?
>It was down for a week, and cost a few hundred K
>in idle time across the country. We opted to move to a different MMS
>vendor at that point, and just completed the implementation last year.
Sounds like it was more a proceedural issue and not a technical issue.
>Oh, it is now an Oracle database running on NT. Peoplesoft gives us
>problems as well. Bad third party applications exist everywhere.
That kill the entire OS and require a re-install of the OS?
>> >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.
Doesn't appear to be a problem on the unix systems that I've used.
Josh
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
