Linux-Advocacy Digest #83, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Feb 01 19:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Please explain this to me. (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner research
for your reading pleasure) (Steve Mading)
Re: Measuring user satisfaction with Linux OS (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Karel Jansens)
Re: Another user "Oopsie"! (Karel Jansens)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Karel Jansens)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Karel Jansens)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Karel Jansens)
Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux... (Karel Jansens)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux? (Darin Johnson)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Johan Kullstam)
Re: The Wintrolls (Peter Hayes)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (mlw)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (mlw)
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust... (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Please explain this to me.
Date: 9 Feb 2001 22:51:34 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Martigan wrote:
:>
:> Well as I see when RH and others did their IPO's the prices sky
:> rocketed, like the .COM's. But these flaky ass investors are wanting
:> immediate returns. I know the stock market is a money game, that's all it
:> is. People want money NOW! This is why it is hard for me to understand why
:> people worry so much about it. So what is RH and some others go DOWN.
: I have a real problem with what passes for "capitalism" these days. It is more
: like greedism.
The problem isn't that investors want to make money. The problem
is that they want to make money NOW, and they don't give a flying
fsck if the enterprise they invested in will keep making money
next year or next decade. If it starts failing, they'll just
pull out and invest in something else. They don't care - they made
their money and now they're done. This attitude is very short-sighted,
and brings the quality of everything down. When you can't see past
the next quarter's earnings record, you never try anything large and
grandiose. The wright brother's airplane building business was
very slow to get started, because there was little demand for the
novelty of flying. So they went around putting on airshows,
like a travelling circus, trying to drum up interest. It took a
long time, but eventually an actual aircraft industry had begun,
and Curtiss-Wright was one of the more successful companies in it.
In today's dot-com myopic investor world, they'd have given up
long before they saw the fruits of their labor.
: The great capitalists of history built things, accomplished great feats. Huge
: building, newspapers, etc. Many of these things were a life worth of work. I'm
: not saying there was no greed, surely there was, be the society publicly valued
: the accomplishments, and privately envied the wealth.
: Today, we ignore any accomplishment, and only focus on wealth. A company that
: employed people was, in and of itself, a valuable entity to be protected. These
: days social responsibility is out. Greed is in.
: Welcome to the global economy. People don't matter. Governments don't matter.
: We are back to the golden rule. "The one with the gold, makes the rules."
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner
research for your reading pleasure)
Date: 9 Feb 2001 22:58:36 GMT
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "With Linux, we had to restart our servers on an average of once every week
: or two," says Fenley.
I used to work for a place that make that malarkey claim about
commercial unixen such as HPUX, AIX, and Solaris. The truth was
that our turnkey system (built on unix) had enough bugs and
quirks that we would sometimes leave behind runaway processes.
We told clients that it was just "normal" to have to reboot
a unix machine once every couple of weeks just to make sure
everything was good. Since most of the clients were not
computer experts, they believed it, and the company didn't have
to admit that it was its own software that was at fault.
I am very glad I quit working there. It's hard to take pride
in a job where your 'superiors' are pulling stunts like that.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Measuring user satisfaction with Linux OS
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:07:00 GMT
Are you being totally honest about studying for a degree? If I was an
employer I would avoid all students from the Univesity you attend
considering the lake of professionalism in regards to the requirements
for your degree.
Matthew Gardiner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello to all Linux users. Some of you guys may have read my plea for
> help some of you may not. I am currently completing my master degree in
> Information System and I need respondents from all Linus users.
> I have adopted a EUCS instrument to aid me in my research. The End User
> Computing Satisfaction instrument was formulated by Doll and Torkdazeh
> in 1988 and validated by confirmatory factor analysis. The
> questionnaire may appear abit confusing but it has been proven an
> effective tool in measuring end user satisfaction. Please take the time
> to fill out the short 12 question instrument at
> http://www.gonzalo.net/satisfaction.htm. All opinions are welcome.
> Your help is critical to the completion of my degree.
> Assistance will be greatly appreciated. To all those who have filled
> out the questionnaire...Thank You!
> Mahalo Nui Loa (Thank you very much in Hawaiian)
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:40:02 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:14:35 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >And here I was thinking Linux was such a wonderful system.
> >
> >I asked The Gimp to print a picture for me.
> >
> >And what do I find on my printer...
> >
> >Several sheets of ASCII!!!
> >
> >Such a simple thing, print a picture.
>
> It's normal for Linux. The Penguinista's love looking at bits and
> bytes :)
>
> FWIW my older Canon 4400 printer functions fine from Netscape, refuses
> to print anything other than ASCII from Wordperfect, and won't print
> at all from StarOffice.
>
> Great system this Linux.
> Great system indeed.
>
Just to avoid wastage of time: Do you need help with this problem?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another user "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:30:59 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Do you mean the test page you print at installation time?
>
> Yes
>
> > If so, that is no guarantee that your application will use the correct
> > driver.
>
> Ah...
>
> I see.
>
> > The reason for this non-Windowsey behaviour is quite simple and there
> > is actually a logic behind it. Linux, unlike Windows, is by design a
> > multi-user, network-centric system. A consequence of this is that it
> > is entirely possible that someone is running a program from your
> > system on an entirely differently configured system. The program
> > cannot (and therefore should not) depend on the configuration of your
> > system for its output. For this it is necessary to setup printing for
> > every program separately. You may have (inadvertently, but I doubt
> > that) told the Gimp to print to a genuine PostScript printer instead
> > of using the GhostScript pipe (which would be a good thing if you were
> > running it from a workstation that had TRT - The Real Thing <TM> -
> > attached to it), hence the ASCII.
>
> That makes a kind of sense, but then I kinda thought CUPS was supposed
> to sort all this out. Each application having its own driver etc. is a
> pretty wasteful way (in resources and user time) of doing things -
> especially when there's ONE user only.
>
I don't know CUPS, butlinux/UNIX definitely does have a generic
printer driver: It's called PostScript. You just have to be careful
that, if your setup does not include a real, "singin'an'dancin'",
PostScript printer, you should not try to print directly to one (as
you apparently did), but spool it through the GhostScript translator.
This is what was set up at installation time (and how your test page
got printed). This GhostScript "printer" is usually listed in your
application as "lp" or "lpr" or "passthru PostScript" (in WordPerfect)
and it will render your artistic abominations to paper as you would
expect (in a pinch, you could send your PostScript print to a file -
you *do* know how to do this, right? - and open that file subsequently
in Ghostview. This always works but is a little more cumbersome). I
don't recall how it goes in Mandrake, but SuSE has YaST, which makes
setting up and controlling printers (through apsfilter) quite a breeze
(some of the script jockeys will probably see me cast in the nether
hell, but I actually like YaST. A lot. Enough to learn how to spell it
correctly, even).
BTW, and before you ask, I don't use the GIMP either(my meagre
artistic needs are more than adequately fulfilled by Applix) so I
suggest you RTFM to find out how to do your thing exactly.
> > It may seem that linux requires needless setup work from the user, but
> > this is only the case if one insists on looking at linux as a copy of
> > Windows.
>
> That's how it looks when there's one user.
>
But the situation of "one user" is actually a special case in linux.
Learn this mantra: "Multi-user, multi-tasking" and repeat it until you
believe it. Then start using linux again.
> > BTW, I fully realise that you know all of the above, but since you
> > seem to address the non-informed casual reader of this newsgroup, I've
> > taken the liberty of "dumbing you down" to one.
>
> 'ere missus, he's takin' liberties, he is!
>
I only take what is given freely.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:52:34 +0100
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> >
> > What would interest me to know is this: What market segment is linux
> > aimed at (note: this may not have been a conscious decision of linux
> > distributors) and how well does it do in its target segment?
> >
> > My hunch: linux is (at this moment, today, here and now) targeted
> > towards the "educated" PC-user; someone who is not necessarily a
> > hacker supreme, or maybe not even a programmer, but a computer user
> > who has at least an inkling of knowledge of what goes on under the
> > bonnet. I would like to extrapolate from marginal research data (i.e.
> > "guess") that linux is doing quite well in that segment, and that it
> > has even started to make inroads into the segments traditionally
> > reserved for the "consumer-friendly" operating systems, such as
> > Windows and MacOS.
>
> I would say that pre-installed Linux would be EASIER for the 'newbie'
> computer user to deal with.
>
Indeed, but I haven't come across any pre-installed linux systems yet
(at least in Belgium).
> For one thing, the user KNOWS that if he's not logged into root, he
> can't damage the system....and that the only reason that he should
> log into root is to add hardware or applications.
>
Hmmm. To use leafnode, one must su. Forget to "exit" afterwards and
our friendly newbie has inadvertently left a gaping security floating
hole on her/his desktop. There are probably other examples out there.
Linux is a great operating system, but it should not be used by
ignorami on unattended desktops (unless they are prepared to see the
lot blow up in their face).
BTW, I see you've changed your sender name. You may be pleased to know
that you are the only person to have ever made it into my killfile
(hence my clumsy use of it), and this not for the content of your
statements (I actually agree with most of them (*)), but only because
of your sigline.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
(*) Except for your comments about Dave Tholen; I *like* Dave.
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:36:04 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:34:03 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> >
> > When you assume that things act in one OS the same way that
> > they would act in another, yes.
>
> You mean like selecting a printer from a dialog box?
> Gee, that's how Windows does it, and surprise! that's how Linux does
> it as well.
>
> Difference is, under Windows it works and under Linux?
>
> Well YMMV.
>
>
The error Pete Goodwin described is analogous to having a LaserJet
connected to your computer and selecting to print to a Canon bubble
jet. Do you mean this is impossible in Windows?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:53:44 +0100
Unknown Poster wrote:
>
> >
> > You must remember that in the Mac world the GUI is the Computer, therefore
> > any ignorant Mac-ite troll won't realise the utter stupidity of that last
> > remark and just what it says about them.
> >
> > Peter
>
> No, according to Larry Ellison, the Network is the computer...
I thought that was Sun...
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux...
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:04:52 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:52:42 GMT, "Mark Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm sure I'm just a knucklehead but I don't get the way focus is handled in
> >linux GUIs. For example, PAN for one, when you setup the properties
> >focus defaults to the OK button instead of to the first edit box on the
> >dialog. I've noticed this in many GUIs in linux. However just as common is
> >that you get no focus what so ever and you have to explicitly click your
> >mouse on the field that you want to edit (posting a new article in PAN is
> >another example - you can't even tab to put focus - grrrr). This is just a
> >pain to go back and forth from the mouse. GUI navigation in linux, in general,
> >just doens't feel very intuitive.
>
> Congratulations!
> You've discovered Linux, the inconsistent OS that is consistent in one
> aspect only....You get to choose from 25 different gui's, none of
> which is consistent even within itself.
>
Now that is plain wrong. Window managers are extremely consistent
within themselves. For those who object to choice, at least that part
of your argument is right.
> >I wish I knew how/had time to program this stuff myself...
>
> Now we know why you are having so much trouble.
> In order to successfully run Linux, you need to know how to bang out
> code.
>
Define successfully.
> As for time, you'll quickly discover that YOU don't RUN Linux, LINUX
> RUNS YOU!
> Usually around in circles, but some people prefer triangles, that is
> until you finally take a look at the clock and all the time you've
> wasted and wipe your system clean of Linux.
>
I have yet to discover an operating system that runs me (I don't think
we've accomplished that level of AI yet, but who knows...)
I take it you mean that it is impossible to accomplish anything useful
in linux, at least not in the time this would be possible within "that
other" operating environment? It is my experience that a running linux
system, with the applications that I need, will let me focus more on
my work than on the operating system I'm working in. From what I hear
of friends who use "that other" operating environment, this is not so
much the case for them. It is also my experience that I tend to have
more money left than my friends when we've all finished buying our
computer stuff, although this actually works in my friends' favour,
because I usually end up paying the beer tabs (I don't really mind; I
have the cash for it and they really need the alcohol after a whole
day with "that other" operating environment).
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:23:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : In comp.os.linux.misc Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : How can you know, think, affirm or deny anything if you don't
> :> : believe anything?
> :> : "The Earth is positivly, absolutly not flat", implies that I have some
> :> : beliefs concerning the shape of the Earth.
> :> : Please give me one example of a subject that I deny a statement,
> :> : but don't have any belief associated with it.
> :> You owe me $1000. Pay up. If you deny this, is that a new
> :> belief on your part that you didn't have before you read this
> :> post?
> : Sure is.
> Then we are at an impasse. To me, such a thing is not a belief.
> Hearing a claim and not believing it is identical to not having
> heard the claim in the first place, in terms of how much quantity
> of belief you have about said claim.
I suppose your right, we are at an ipasse.
It's kind of fasinating however that the dictionary defines "belief"
in part as an "opinion or conviction".
You apparently say, "If I agree, I believe. If I dissagree, I have no
opinion or conviction on the subject".
What is the process you go through when you first hear the claim, but
have not yet rendered an opinion (belief)?
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 9 Feb 2001 23:26:51 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Name them and show me dejanews urls to their articles please.
> Go ahead and find them yourself.
Just exactly what "claire" did. When confronted with the burden of proof,
claire told me to 'go find them myself'.
Because they dont exist. This is called 'smokescreening' or 'snowing',
pete. A sophomoric deflection at best.
Again I ask you: provide URLs, or admit your lie.
>> Or you can pull a 'claire' and killfile me because youre too embarrassed
>> to admit that you cant come up with the evidence that you've sworn you
>> have.
> I don't need to.
Because it doesnt exist. I see.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:28:04 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ONAg6.5171$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <95ua5o$ip490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Fermin Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Hi Peter
> > >
> > >"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
> > >> from that MS-shit.
> > >
> > >Which parts of MS's TCP/IP implementation don't you like? On which Windows
> > >versions? Please be more specific.
> >
> > According to Unix Administration Handbook, 3rd ed.:
> >
> > "Linux pays attention to the type-of-service (TOS) bits in IP packets
> > and gives faster service to packets that are labeled as interactive (low
> > latency). Jammin'! Unfortunately, brain damage on the part of
> > Microsoft necessitates that you turn off this perfectly reasonable
> > behavior."
>
> Are they referring to QoS and just aren't smart enough to spell it right?
No, they're referring to TOS, but you're too ignorant to know what it
is.
[snip]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux?
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:25:13 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So far, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has been able to
> successfully write a SIMD compiler....period.
Except that reliable compilers were indeed written. Nothing unusual
about it. Any vectorizing compiler is essentially writing for SIMD
computers. Maybe not exactly SIMD, but the principles from vector
machines would map easily to SIMD machines.
And Thinking Machines definately sold compilers for the CM2 that
produced working code.
I hope your prof that said this wasn't a Computer Science prof...
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:36:41 GMT
Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Johan Kullstam wrote:
> >
> > Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "God" is, by definition, "the First Cause".
> >
> > this is begs the question and renders your argment completely
> > meaningless.
> >
> I am afraid this doesn't parse at all. Could you rephrase that,
> please?
i can't explain it any better than these guys.
<URL:http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/begging.htm>
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:45:12 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:19:57 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux has the following methods of configuring the kernel:
>
> 1. a script, invoked by "make config", which asks yes/no/module
> questions for each option, of which there are several hundred.
> Hitting the return key selects the default.
And make one mistake and you have to start again, even the backspace key
isn't of any use correcting mistakes.
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be done today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:55:08 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > It does. You dump out postscript, and let the printer/filter deal with
> > it. Any app can print to any printer.
>
> You can have any colour you like, so long as it's black.
>
> And what happens if you don't like black, or don't have a postscript
> printer?
I have an HP 870cse color non-postscript printer and I have colors.
"Ghostscript" is the rendering engine in Linux for non-postscript printers.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:57:37 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ahh, well that's a different story is>
>
> Same story, same channel, etc.
>
> > Gimp is one of the most powerful programs I have ever seen. It is also
> one of
> > the most user hostile ones I can imagine.
>
> As compared to Paint Shop Pro which had problems with this sort of thing.
>
> > This is not a Linux problem, it is an application issue. Many imaging
> > applications (including Windows applications) circumvent standard printer
> > drivers. Windows provides special escape codes for this so
> applications can
> > write their own printer specific rendering routines. Under UNIX, the
> app can
> > render the page any way they wish.
>
> That used to be true for Windows a long time ago, but I don't believe
> most Windows apps use their own printer driver any more. Instead, they
> use the Windows one, and this sort of thing becomes seamless.
That's not true at all. Perhaps Microsoft applications don't use escape calls,
because their apps guys finally have all the features they want in the OS
(chinese wall my ass), but most of "output quality" packages still use printer
escapes.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:55:04 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Fermin Sanchez wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Peter
> > >
> > > "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
> > > > from that MS-shit.
> > >
> > > Which parts of MS's TCP/IP implementation don't you like? On which Windows
> > > versions? Please be more specific.
> > >
> >
> > Why, is there a MS TCP/IP implementation which isn't shit? Is it still
> > in beta? When is it coming out? Up to now all have been one worse than
> > the other.
>
> Well, first we have tpc.org. We see Windows blowing away all Unixes.
Well, I'm fed up with tpc.org. It's a site handled by a number of
companies to advertise their products, and it has nothing to do with
"independent benchmarks". Only a clueless ignorant Windows supporter
could stop considering its useless data.
Leave it aside and try with another one.
>
> Secondly, we have hackwindows2000.com or whatever it was called where
> no one was every successfully able to take down the Win2K box MS put
> up (despite tens of millions of packets per day).
>
Well, it appears that Microsoft corp. has succeeded in having its site
down quite a lot, recently.
> Thirdly, we have Win2K with a built in IPSec and QoS implementation.
> Linux may have an IPsec implementation, but does it have a QoS
> implementation?
Now we must make a little game. Do you have the faintest idea of what
QoS is? Please give a succinct description, then I'll provide you some
interesting links. But first you explain what you think it is.
>
> Fourthly, Windows 2000 has set several data transfer speed records.
> There was a big bally-who last fall where MS sent several gigabytes
> over fiber in a matter of seconds, IIRC. A casual search should turn
> it up.
>
> Please, in detail, describe why MS's TCP/IP implementation is so poor.
> You seem so confident of it, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with
> at least ONE or TWO major points.
>
OK. ONE: MS's TCP/IP implementation sends garbage at startup, cluttering
the network. TWO: It doesn't support TOS, so that an FTP disk to disk
transfer of 100 MB is handled the same way as a Telnet session, lowering
QoS in a stupid way. (Note for Aaron if he's reading: I know that I'm
giving him a hand, but he won't see it, I bet!) THREE: It doesn't
recover from broken packets. If it hangs you must terminate it manually
and restart it (provided it doesn't take down the full OS). etc. etc.
etc.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust...
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:59:00 -0500
Francis Van Aeken wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The only way to make money with free software is to sell services.
>
> Funny thing is, SuSE is laying off its support people, not its programmers (*).
>
No one ever said they were doing the right thing. ;-)
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
