Linux-Advocacy Digest #34, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Feb 01 10:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: AARON R. KULKIS HAS NO LIFE AND ASSUMES NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER ("Chad Myers")
Re: I don't understand ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I don't understand ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sun vs. MS ("Patrick McAllister")
Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100. (sfcybear)
Re: What's EF's explanation on this one? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Chad Myers")
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("John Hughes")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (spam)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (spam)
Re: I don't understand (Bruce Scott TOK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: AARON R. KULKIS HAS NO LIFE AND ASSUMES NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 13:58:32 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Zi8g6.6368$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:63Pf6.560$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Thanks but no thanks...Windows 2000 Professional is the end of the
> line
> > > > for
> > > > > me. Whistler is totally unnecessary and .NET will NEVER pollute one
> of my
> > > > > machines. It's about as transparent a money vacuum as DIVX was. We
> will
> > > > > neither utilize it nor develop for it - period. It is something to
> be
> > > > > viewed with disdain, not anticipation. Only the severely
> short-sighted
> > > > > would actually welcome such a system.
> > > >
> > > > Spoken just like someone without a clue about what .NET is.
> > > >
> > > > (HINT: The subscription based services are only a tiny part of it,
> and
> > > > something that very few .NET programs will take advantage of. If this
> is
> > > > the only argument you can come up with, you're going to be quite
> surprised).
> > >
> > > OK, Erik The-laughably-named...why don't you tell us *precisely* what
> > > .NET is.....
> >
> > 15 hours, and NO answer from Erik.
> >
> > I wonder why
>
> Some people have lives outside of usenet.
(Post through Erik)
Aaron,
I don't know if you've heard of it, but there's this new thing called the
"World Wide Web". Yeah, it's great. You can "search" for things on
"Search engines". It's really neat, you type in anything and it usually
returns a couple results relative to your topic.
You can also just type in an address and it will take you directly to
the "web site".
Try this one:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I don't understand
Date: 7 Feb 2001 14:14:09 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > It seems to be a standard measure among winvocates and some linvocates to
>> > quote the number of things you can do at once to prove the OS is good.
>> > Fair enough, *but* why do some people claim thay can play several MP3s at
>> > once?
>>
>> > Why in hells name would would you want to do that? The din must be awful.
>>
>> A DJ friend of mine carries all of her tunes on a small machine running 4
>> 18 gig scsi drives in a 36 gig mirrored array. (FreeBSD mirroring, not
>> hardware; its actually quite lovely). The control for her setup is a Thinkpad
>> running Mandrake 7.1 w/kjukebox; which can handle and manage many audio
>> streams at once without choking. This sort of thing is nessesary for DJing,
>> because you spend alot of your time playing with redundant and overlapping
>> streams.
> Computationally, it's a REALLY low-bandwidth task.
Absolutely...under linux or freebsd. Under windows however, its a different
story.
She started off using Win98 but found it to be far too unstable, then switched
to W2K (a certian very popular radiostation in the area uses W2K for the same)
but found it to also be too unstable for DJ tasks. Plus, all the software
licensing was too much; since this is her prime business, she needs to be
100% legit. When she happened apon linux w/kjukebox and an NFS setup between
that and the drive array and discovered that the entire thing was completely
free, she could afford to get two more 18gig SCSI drives and put every last
tune she owns onto it. The whole setup weighs in at about 30 lbs (without
amp, eq, speakers, etc) and fits nicely in the back of her truck. The
computational side takes about 2 minutes to set up---plug everything in,
plug both freebsd machine and thinkpad into an ethernet hub, and away she
goes.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I don't understand
Date: 7 Feb 2001 14:17:16 GMT
Bruce Scott TOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <95r35u$gk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>It seems to be a standard measure among winvocates and some linvocates to
>>quote the number of things you can do at once to prove the OS is good.
>>Fair enough, *but* why do some people claim thay can play several MP3s at
>>once?
>>
>>Why in hells name would would you want to do that? The din must be awful.
>>
>>Just wondering
> Maybe typical nerdiness. But the ability to play several mp3s at once
> is the same as the ability to compile several large codes, run a few of
> them, and read and write news all at once. This many of us do
> regularly.
Actually, my DJ friend depends on this ability and makes about 1500 dollars
a week utilizing it.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Patrick McAllister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Sun vs. MS
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:15:45 -0500
I just thought this was funny....I liked his responses to MS, although I
personally can't vouch for their accuracy.....
http://www.sun.com/dot-com/realitycheck/headsup010205.html
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100.
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:22:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wilfred van Rooyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Being a nerd and a wiseguy, please allow me to improve the statistics
here
> a littlebit:
>
> Uptime Solaris:
>
> mean: 60.18 days
> standard deviation: 67.51
> 95% confidence interval: 51.76 - 68.60 days
>
> Uptime Linux
>
> mean: 36.73 days
> standard deviation: 24.51
> 95% confidence interval: 32.19 - 41.26 days
>
> Uptime M$
>
> mean: 19.82
> standard deviation: 14.68
> 95% confidence interval: 16.57 - 23.07
>
> So far, this is not good for M$..... Remember that when the
confindence
> intervals intersect/overlap the difference between the two observed
> stochastics is statistically insignificant.
> However, the statistics could be skewed because of very high or low
values
> of one of the observed stochastics (outlier); if the outlier bigger
than 2
> sigma are ruled out, we get the following statistics:
>
> Uptime Solaris:
>
> mean: 44.17 days
> standard deviation: 26.64
> 95% confidence interval: 40.71 - 49.59 days
>
> Uptime Linux
>
> mean: 32.67 days
> standard deviation: 20.04
> 95% confidence interval: 28.81 - 36.54 days
>
> Uptime M$
>
> mean: 19.82
> standard deviation: 14.68
> 95% confidence interval: 16.57 - 23.07
>
> There are no outliers in de M$ case. Not only are they crappy, thay
are
> ALL crappy at a statistical level. Note that the statistics for
Solaris
> are heavily skewed because of the two outliers at 254 and 334 days.
And
> that the Solaris is significantly better than Linux.
For the price of Solaris and the hardware it should be. That is the
problem with W2K and NT, It costs a lot and is not as stable as a
give-away OS! The combination of Linux and Solaris is a good match. A
small Linux server may be all a small sales office needs for Email and
file sharing while the solaris boxes do some of the more mission
critical stuff. With little effort the same skill sets can run both!
>
> Please Njoy
>
> Wilfred.
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's EF's explanation on this one?
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:10:01 +0100
mlw wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Here goes: when formatting a floppy under Windows 98, one can't do
> > > anything else.
> >
> > Not quite true. Yes, the GUI is fairly well frozen, but non-I/O bound
> > processes continue to be scheduled.
> >
> > This is an artifact of the DOS compatibility, floppy disk access goes
> > thorugh the bios (this is what allows IDE floppies to be used without
> > special drivers, since the newer BIOS's automatically patch the int13
> > vectors to deal with it). BIOS drive access provides very poor
> > performance
> > because of the I/O bound locking. The same happens when the IDE drives
> > run in "compatibilty mode", but since hard disk writes are so much
> > faster than floppy writes, you don't notice the degradation as much (but
> > you can sure see an order of magnatude slower disk access).
>
> It uses the DOS call, which in turn calls the BIOS to format a floppy.
> Because DOS is busy, the system is unusable. So, in sort, and despite all
> protestations against, Windows is nothing more than a DOS extender.
>
Well, the BIOS call very probably does not work in Protected mode but in
Real-Mode. If Microsoft was good (which I doubt very much) they were
able to put a wrapper around it to let it work in Virtual Real Mode, which
is really Protected Mode, but for the Proggy / Routine running it looks like
Real Mode. Problem then, in that mode no I/O allowed (must be given
explicit allowance by the DOS), no direct interrupt handling allowed.
That can be a real kicker if you've got timing sensitive routines like
formatting / reading / writing a floppy (which are, programmatically, not
very different).
I know, several years ago I wrote my own BIOS (at 486 I stopped, the
machines started to be different on the MoBo then). I did manage to
do a Dual-Mode Floppy-BIOS (Protected / Real, both worked the same)
but that was more for the fun of it since no OS did actually use that
But it was quite difficult.
That MS did not put something similar into 9X (although they have it
in NT) shows their lazyness and utter disregard for the customer.
Since you don't need to do floppy I/O that often or very long, they
probably figured they could do without.
--
"The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then
hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog and
smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just extremism."
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:29:33 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95qtij$i0k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:95pkra$a16$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Daza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : Telnet anyone? Remote cmd.exe?
> >
> > That would only be relevant if Windows had more of its core
> > functionality available in a CLI version like UNIX does.
>
> No, it doesn't.
> We aren't talking abut what you can do with this, we are talking if you can
> do this.
> This being multi user login
Well, using Telnet in windows is like tying both arms behind your back,
but if you must, there are many cmd-line utilities with Windows and
even more freely available from the resource kit utilities on MS' site.
Also, there's netsh.exe which is pretty handy for most stuff.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:45:42 -0000
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
>
>
> I'm merely asking you to tell us to define what .NET is.
>
>
>
Try reading these. Lots of links for your research needs.
http://www.dotnetwire.com
http://www.insidemicrosoft.net
------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 06:57:54 -0800
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:27:43 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Well, since C# and the CLR are now ECMA standards, this is a possibilty.
>> >The real benefit of .NET will be the Java-like cross platform capability
>> >(think CE, 32 bit windows, 64 bit windows, MacOS X all from the same EXE,
>> >each optimized for their own platforms by the .NET runtime compiler
>(which
>> >is much more like SmallTalk than Java))
>>
>> The CLR is ***NOT*** now, nor is it proposed to be an ECMA standard.
>
>Sorry, technically it's the CLI that's the standard, but the CLR is just an
>implementation of the CLI.
Ya, an implementation with all the functionality. BTW MS doesn't
present the CLR as an implementation of the CLI. In another group,
MS's Tony Goodhew stated that the CLI is not the CLR and only refers
to the "framework" of classes submitted to ECMA and he would not state
that the CLI is a compatible subset of the .NET CLR.
Another poster compared the CLR the CLI ECMA submission and here's
some of the differences:
System.CodeDom.* // .NET compiler stuff
System.ComponentModel.* // .NET component scheme (i.e. ActiveX
replacement)
System.Configuration.* // for installing and managing .NET
assemblies
System.Core // Dialog with underlying OS
System.Data.* // Database access (SQL, XML, ADO+)
System.DirectoryServices.* // Active directory access
System.Drawing.* // GDI+
System.Messaging // Message Queue access
System.NewXML.* // Advanced XML manipulation
System.ServiceProcess // OS Service Access
System.Timers // Manages schedules for launching tasks
System.Web.* // Web server configuration
System.Web.Services.* // Custom web server framework
System.Web.UI.* // WebForms stuff and HTML generation
System.WinForms.* // WinForms stuff
Of course the fact that these classes are missing from the current
standard proposal doesn't necessarily mean that people (even MS) won't
implement some of them on other platforms. But it doesn't look
particularly promising.
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 07:03:08 -0800
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:40:34 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:15:11 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> >Well, since C# and the CLR are now ECMA standards, this is a possibilty.
>> >The real benefit of .NET will be the Java-like cross platform capability
>> >(think CE, 32 bit windows, 64 bit windows, MacOS X all from the same EXE,
>> >each optimized for their own platforms by the .NET runtime compiler
>(which
>> >is much more like SmallTalk than Java))
>>
>> Ok, so why won't this suffer from the same "write once test many times"
>> problems that Java (and every other cross-platform language) has?
>> Further, what's to stop MS from enhancing the ECMA standard with things
>> that only work on Windows, as they attempted to do with Java? What do
>> you suppose will happen if they do that? Why _wouldn't_ they do that?
>
>I didn't say it wouldn't. The failure of WORA was not Java's failure, but
>rather Sun's refusal to relinquish control enough to allow standardization
>and to implement what needed to be implemented and their constant promising
>of things they couldn't deliver in a timely fasion. Java might have
>succeeded if Sun had been able to put enough resources into it to do even a
>fraction of what MS has already done in beta with .NET.
Well I for one find Java's WORA works quite well between vaious
flavors of Windows, Linux, and Unix. Better than anything else I've
ever used or seen. And last I looked Java developers are in big demand
around the world so your claim that Java hasn't succeeded seems a
little premature.
>It took sun years to get a decent JIT (HotSpot) and years to develop a
>standard native interface, and years to develop component models like Java
>Beans... people gave up on the hype because Sun couldn't deliver in a timely
>manner, and when they did it usually was a poorer quality product than even
>MS ships in a 1.0 release.
Got's lots of experience with Java do you Erik?
>
>Also, Java suffered from the fact that Sun only supported the Java language.
>Yes, there are other languages that target the JVM today, but they are not
>supported by Sun and discouraged.
>
>> >And, if people write .NET for Linux, as they'll be able to do from the
>> >standards, you can run on Linux as well.
>>
>> Except for the things that don't. Since MS, the promulgator of the
>> standard, and you can be real sure that ECMA won't be calling the shots,
>> will not itself be providing .NET for Linux (or probably anything except
>> Windows), why won't we see the same problems we saw with Java on Linux
>> prior to Sun and IBM seeing the light?
>
>MS has already contracted with Corel to port .NET to Linux.
>
Started the work have they? Any links?
>> Your rosy view of .NET assumes that they will be able to overcome all of
>> the same problems Java faces, but because they are Microsoft it'll all
>> be a cakewalk. That they will play fair and not try to use their
>> control of the platform to favor their own interests. Basically, nobody
>> but die-hard MS-lovers believes either one of those things any more.
>
>Java's problem was Sun. They killed it with their management.
It's dead now?
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: I don't understand
Date: 7 Feb 2001 16:02:19 +0100
In article <95rldc$h7l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bruce Scott TOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <95r35u$gk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>It seems to be a standard measure among winvocates and some linvocates to
>>>quote the number of things you can do at once to prove the OS is good.
>>>Fair enough, *but* why do some people claim thay can play several MP3s at
>>>once?
>>>
>>>Why in hells name would would you want to do that? The din must be awful.
>>>
>>>Just wondering
>
>> Maybe typical nerdiness. But the ability to play several mp3s at once
>> is the same as the ability to compile several large codes, run a few of
>> them, and read and write news all at once. This many of us do
>> regularly.
>
>Actually, my DJ friend depends on this ability and makes about 1500 dollars
>a week utilizing it.
This is comparable to the income of a research scientist living off the
same capability...
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
