Linux-Advocacy Digest #94, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Feb 01 06:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Interesting article (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: The Truth, was "Linux fails to deliver on the hype" (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here! ("anneluca")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Adam Warner")
Re: Interesting article (Charlie Ebert)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Interesting article ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:54:20 -0600
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > "Mike Martinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > From what I've read
> > >
> > > http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41622,00.html
> > >
> > > Microsoft isn't waiting for antitrust legislation to destroy them.
> > > They're doing it themselves. If I understand correctly, with
Whistler,
> > > people will have to phone in registration numbers to get systems to
> > > run. And that the copy protection supposedly includes a scheme by
which
> > > the reg. number gets tied to the machine's configuration - hard drive,
> > > net card, modem, etc. This is insane. If true, people will have to
> > > re-phone in their regs when they upgrade peripherals!
> >
> > Yes, it's true, and no, it doesn't mean what you think it does. Stop
> > jumping to conclusions. The article you quote even specifically says
that
> > you can upgrade your periphials without re-activating.
> >
>
> You said it. Now consider that, for whatever reason (MoBo dead, got a
> faster one, you name it) I want to replace the motherboard. Now that
> braindead scheme kicks in, although the OS still runs on the same
> computer (you don't want to tell me that the MoBo IS the computer)
You can replace the motherboard without re-activation.
> And below you acknowledge that even a different NIC will kick it in.
No I don't. You can replace components, even the motherboard without
reactivating. You just can't replace *ALL* your components without
reactivating.
> In effect MS will control what I can do with MY computer and the OS,
> which i gave money for (lots of it, to boot).
You don't own the OS, you only own the license, even with Linux.
> > > So, you change your NIC card and in order to make use of your monthly
> > > software subscription to get the new driver you have to wait on hold
> > > with your computer's configuration list for someone to re-enable your
> > > machine so you can download the software you're already being billed
> > > for. This sounds neat.
> >
> > Completely wrong. You get 50 days of use before you have to activate.
> > You can do so at your leasure, and if you have an internet access, it
can
> > do it
> > without calling anyone. The call is only for people without net access.
>
> Well, NIC already said. What about other cards. SCSI for example. TV card.
> And so on. MS is very vague about that.
You can't replace every component without re-activating. You can upgrade as
many components as you like.
> No, Erik, this won't work. In Germany MS already received a court ruling
> which forbids this. I don't think that they could pull it through even
> without such a ruling, the germans may be dumb, but by far not THAT dumb.
Hmm.. do you have a reference to this?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:56:52 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The problem they were having is if you use BSD based source
> code you must give credits according to the license then.
>
> Otherwise the use of that code was illegal.
Not true anymore, and hasn't been for about 2 years. The regents at Berkely
removed the requirement.
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 01:47:16 -0800
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Amphetamine Bob wrote:
>
> > I know a ton of OS/2 users who have tried to go over to Linux. Almost
> > every single one of them has come back to OS/2. Most of those who do
> > not miss OS/2 every day. OS/2 exceeds Linux in the following ways:
> > speed, multimedia, resource use, multitasking, multithreading, TCP/IP
> > stack, GUI, Java and ease of use. Linux is better in a few ways,
> > especially stability. I think OS/2 could use the memory mapping and
> > symlinks, too.
>
> Whoa, ease up on the amphetamines there, Bob!
I am. The doc just reduced my dose. Nothing like a legal script,
huh? ;) He he he.
>
> Agreed, OS/2 was an advanced OS in it's day,
It still is. And Linux has a ways to go. Nothing on Intel has yet
caught up to OS/2 (IMO).
and
> was superior to windows in many ways.
Still is better than Windows anything.
But let's not
> get carried away here -
>
> Speed, multitasking
This is good on Linux.
and tcp/ip stack
Last I heard the Linux TCP/IP stack was not there at all yet. This
was a while back. So is it there yet or is it still a work in
progress? And it is widely agreed that OS/2 has the best TCP/IP stack
on Intel.
happen to be strong
> points for Linux,
which provides a full set of Unix services,
> along with the appletalk and pc-lan protocols, allowing it
> to act as the glue between mac, windows & other Unices.
Ok, in this way it is better. Also in terms of multiuser stuff. And
remember that I mentioned symlinks, mem-mapping and stability.
> (Of course, that could be said of {free,net,open}bsd(i)*,
> and it could have been said somewhat earlier). When OS/2
> can match the 8 way specweb99 results, aw heck, if OS/2
> could even match Linux' single CPU specweb results, I'll
> agree that it's performance, tcp/ip and multitasking are on
> par with Linux -
My friends who run both tell me that OS/2's resource use, speed, etc.
beat Linux. They also say the multitasking is better. They have
posted numerous examples of this, with specs on the systems involved
and the apps being run. I would say the only thing on Intel that
comes close to OS/2 in multitasking is QNX. And between QNX and OS/2,
it is very close. I also understand that Plan 9, Inferno and some of
the experimental OS's are pretty cool but I don't know enough about
them.
In regards to multitasking, a large German IT mag called c't recently
(last August) tested all of the major consumer OS's for multitasking.
In this contest, the venerable OS/2 continued to beat all comers. And
it did beat Linux, though it was somewhat close.
I agree that Linux is an excellent OS but on the basis of what my
friends tell me, I think OS/2 is still better. You Linux guys should
have more respect for OS/2 and the proprietary Unixen and even
mainframe OSen. A number of these OSen are truly awesome. OS/2's
reputation as a has-been OS is rather naive. It is still a very
modern operating system.
Instead of fighting all the other OSen like they are the enemy, you
Linux guys should be saying something positive about all the fine OSen
out there, proprietary or not.
--
Bob - flipping the bird at 550 MHZ :). Wheeeeee! ;)
Are you sure you REALLY want to read this with Netscape?
[ ] YES Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] NO Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] LOCK UP Crash Windows and soft reboot
[ ] BSOD Crash Windows and hard reboot
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Truth, was "Linux fails to deliver on the hype"
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:03:29 GMT
In article <962ihf$cf7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sfcybear wrote:
>The truth about the SuSE layoffs:
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16772.html
>
>
>In article <95un7e$40a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
>>
>> Staffs cuts in the USA and CEO recosidering business model.
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> Pete
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com
>> http://www.deja.com/
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
I posted some comments to html about a year ago and I'm
replaying them....
http://24.27.157.74/Linux/intro.html
My feeling then is still my feeling today.
I don't think personally that *ANY* of the corporate Linux
companies today, including IBM will survive their Linux
business models unless they integrate back into the community.
What has happened to Suse will eventually happen to RedHat
which is why I think I lost my cool with Adam a short while ago.
I didn't want to believe my predictions, but they are comming
true.
So I'll say it one more time here on COLA for all to read....
What RedHat SHOULD DO but WON'T DO is to use Debian for their
base distribution and focus the company on tip development
for Linux. RedHat could enhance Debian stable and add to
Debian test to produce two seperate versions of Linux for
the market. You could have Linux for business which would
be Debian Stable and Linux for the home user-technology preview,
which would be Debian test.
By integrating themselves back into society, they cut their
costs in producing a standard Linux distribution significantly.
Debian has an outstanding track record for producing the finest
Linux Distribution, bar none! Look at all the awards Debian
has won in the last 3 years!
RedHat could then concentrate on Gnome and install improvements
and still provide support for a nominal fee. In exchange, Debian
would get more tip code into the ranks and a moderate annual
donation for the cooperation.
It just doesn't make any sense for RedHat to re-invent the wheel
right now. They are essentially doing what Debian is already
doing. They need to be doing what Debian IS NOT doing!
They need to be spearheading the future, not spending time
housecleaning their way to releasing another version of
their distribution!
RedHat would gain respect back for having Debian Stable as it's
an absolutely bulletproof distro with months of testing behind
it! The Debian crew knows how to make stable and knows how
to make things WORK!
RedHat is wonderful in producing tip code but they don't seem
to have the patience nor the regulator to solidly test their
distribution and they fall into user pressure and financial
pressure to make releases for more boxed sales! So they
end up shoving out the door unfinished business.....
That makes everybody look bad.
True - RedHat 7.0 can bet W2k! True!
But amongst the Linux's it seems to me we've had Debian and Suse
in most Linux users as the solid distributions. Suse has
crapped out. RedHat has all the market share..
These are crucial days when keeping costs to a minimum are very
important. I hate to see RedHat get tied up in re-inventing
the wheel, re-inventing their own version of apt-get, ect....
It's stupid.
Debian has 3-4 years experience in these matters. Redhat is
not going to come up with a verticle upgrade product to
compete with that in just a couple of months time.
Remember, UNIX-GPL, we build from our past sucesses. We are
all part of a community. When times get tuff, you need to
remember community.
Let Debian handle Stable and let Redhat contribute to unstable
and test. Work as a team.
Those are my thoughts anyway. I'm sure I'll be beaten to death
for having them. But working as a community is what Richard
Stallman had in mind with the GPL. There is too much replication
of work here and even some cross competition between Debian
and RedHat and RedHat is likely to loose that kind of a action.
We have to keep in mind that Debian isn't a corporation.
Debian can't bleed.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: "anneluca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:58:44 +0100
"> When you set expectations very low, it's easy to meet them. Microsoft has
> been very good at getting some "glamour" contracts. Typically these
involve
> ASP servers that do ODBC connections to UNIX or mainframe databases select
> into temp tables, and feed the results back to the users. MTS has done a
> pretty good job of making sure that the multiple queries don't corrupt
each
> other.
you don't understand what's MTS/Com+...
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:08:20 GMT
Hi Karel,
> There seem to be only two valid answers to this question:
>
> 1. Everything possible also happens, or the axiom of parallel
> universes. If there really is an infinite number of them, the entire
> question Why? becomes meaningless and the existence of God indeed
> unnecessary (but see below).
>
> 2. There is a purpose to it all.
<snip>
This has to be the most fascinating Linux thread of all time ;-) I'll just
throw this link in that I came across last year:
http://www.johnenderby.mcmail.com/
In particular this article:
http://www.johnenderby.mcmail.com/everything.htm
I found the article impressive and would like to hear comments from those
who have studied it.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:13:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Amphetamine Bob wrote:
>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>> 2 + 2 wrote:
>>
>> > The article compares OS/2 with the Win9x/Me code base in terms of
>> > innovation.
>> >
>> > Microsoft's real innovation with its OS products was with Windows NT/2000.
>> > And it competes with Linux and Unix.
>> >
>> > And OS/2 is no match for Linux in particular.
>
>I know a ton of OS/2 users who have tried to go over to Linux. Almost
>every single one of them has come back to OS/2. Most of those who do
>not miss OS/2 every day. OS/2 exceeds Linux in the following ways:
>speed, multimedia, resource use, multitasking, multithreading, TCP/IP
>stack, GUI, Java and ease of use. Linux is better in a few ways,
>especially stability. I think OS/2 could use the memory mapping and
>symlinks, too.
OS2 wasn't as fast as NT. That's proven.
And NT isn't as fast as 2.2 kernel linux.
That's proven.
OS2 is also a dead OS which is decomposing as we speak.
And that's proven also.
>> >>
>> Well, in my experience, that depends:
>> I've NEVER seen anything which comes even close to the
>> speed of an OS/2 server if you use SMB protocol. OS/2 runs
>> rings around Win(everyVersion) and Samba.
>> OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
>> from that MS-shit.
>
>The TCP/IP stack is the best on Intel.
>
>> The WPS is way better than the Windows-desktop. It is also
>> better as a single-user-desktop than X.
>> X is better in flexibility.
>
>Dubious.
>
> The windows desktop is good for nothing.
>>
>> IBM got lots right with OS/2, their marketing sucked big time.
>
>Even the best marketing is no use against an illegal monopoly. That
>is the real story here.
>--
>Bob - flipping the bird at 550 MHZ :). Wheeeeee! ;)
>Are you sure you REALLY want to read this with Netscape?
>[ ] YES Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
>[ ] NO Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
>[ ] LOCK UP Crash Windows and soft reboot
>[ ] BSOD Crash Windows and hard reboot
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:34:10 -0800
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >Luckily for Microsoft, 800 MHz 256 MB machines are commonplace nowadays.
>
> I've got one sitting downstairs in a box, but I'm almost afraid to open
> it.
Then send it my way. I'll cover the shipping.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:15:02 GMT
In article <aW1h6.2206$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:961qov$pkr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here's the bottom line. For every copy sold last year, 3 copies
>> were purchased this year.
>
>And how many of them were replacements for old versions? I personally have
>bought 4 copies of Linux. RH 6, 6.2, Mandrake 7.1, and 7.2, and that's not
>counting the copies I got from magazines (Maximum Linux and so on), and
>received with books. None of them are currently being used, since I trashed
>the Mandrake 7.2 install a few weeks ago to install FreeBSD.
>
So, everybody bought three times as many distros this year as last ?
I think that the LUG here gives a more accurate picture. Each
purchased CD gets used between four and six times to install on
newbies machines at our installation meetings.
A new CD of an updated or new distro gets purchased about every
three months.
I have no idea how many times those CDs are used between meetings.
I, personally, seem to average six installs for each of the ones I
have purchased. The SuSE distro I downloaded has only been
installed on one S/390 but we are installing VIF (Virtual Image
Facility) in another LPAR and expect to run about twenty images
under it.
>> True, there's a good likelihood that Linux hits quite a few duds
>> (people who spend 2-3 hours trying to install it without reading
>> the instruction manual, without asking for help, and without getting
>> support from an experienced (preferably certified) Linux installer.
>
>I doubt I could even *FIND* a certified Linux installer if I wanted to. Not
>exactly listed in the yellow pages, unlike companies with MCSE's.
>
I direct you to
http://www.ibm.com/software/is/mp/linux/support/index.html
as a starting point.
No I cannot identify your area code for you.
>> On the other hand, as of this time last year, over 17 million licenses had
>> been shipped in the previous 12 months (IDC research survey), and all
>> indicators are that Linux has again tripled that number this year, which
>> would put sales at nearly 51 million licenses shipped this year.
>
>What does that cover? Books? Cheapbytes? Magazines? 20 million copies
>going out on magazines does not mean even a fraction of them are being used.
>
IDC only counts vendor acknowledged sales, magazines, books, and
downloads are extra.
>> This doesn't include the TiVO boxes, the LinkSys cable modems and storage
>> boxes, or the PlayStation 2 game consoles. When these are added into the
>> mix, the license count for Linux, Embedded Linux, Lineo, and other
>variants
>> could exceed 100 million units.
>
>PlayStation isn't Linux based.
>
But the recommended software development machine runs Linux.
Pay no attention to those others folks Erik will have failed to
misdirect you if you notice.
>> Microsoft is still up to "dirty tricks" which include stomping LILO,
>clearing
>> the MBR,
>
>There is legitimate technical reason for this. Most uers don't know how to
>clean the MBR themselves. Sure, they could check to see if some other
>loader is installed, and then ask, but that would confuse most users.
>Further, MS is under no requirement to consider other OS's, so why should
>they bother? Anyone that uses Linux knows how to reinstall the boot loader
>themselves.
>
Erik, why do you think they settled out of court in the Caldera
DRDOS suit ?
It was to keep just such sabotage of third party software from being
added to the list of their monopolistic crimes.
Deliberate actions to disable any competing product is
anti-competitive and violates the Sherman Act.
>> and using exclusive contracts and nondisclosure agreements to
>> prevent preinstallation of Linux
>
>Oh, that explains why Dell, IBM, Compaq and many other OEM's sell Linux
>systems preinstalled.
>
Only servers, no desktop systems.
W2K which also sells on servers only sold one million licenses in
2000 vs the fifty million that Rex claims we will be seeing reported
later this year.
Doug Miller claimed that Linux growth had been "static" for the last
two quarters. I think he was telling the truth but the interviewer
obviously thought he meant "flat" like W2K.
I will take 170% "static" growth over "flat" anytime.
Rex do you still have your graph which shows Linux surpassing Windows
in March of 2001 ?
>> and to delay the ability of Linux to support
>> USB scanners, Cameras, and "WinPrinters".
>
>MS is not delaying any of these things. The market is.
>
<Chad_Meyers>I demand proof! Put up or shut up.</Chad_Meyers>
>> It should be very interesting to see what Linux would do if it were
>available
>> preinstalled in dual-boot configuration on all PCs produced by IBM, HP,
>> Gateway, Compaq, and Dell. The PC makers desparately need something new
>to
>> stimulate sales. Microsoft has been gouging the PC makers, and Margin
>have
>> completely disappeared.
>
>Why would they even WANT to do that? Very few users would use the Linux
>partition, and it would be wasting disk space. Sure, the user could choose
>to delete the partition, but then they would now have 2 parititions instead
>of one.
>
Obviously you and your friends would not want to but what gives you
the right to tell OEMs that they cannot offer what you don't think
will sell ?
Even if you are right about most not being used, how is that
different from M$ including a traverse the maze game in Excel ?
Or does M$ get an automatic exemption from disk space waste because
they wrote the bloat into an application ?
Another thing, don't assume that M$ recommendations about system
configuration have anything to do with what is best for the end
user. What about relocating the user desktop into that second
partition ? Then when the next upgrade/reinstall/whatever happens
the user work files do not automatically get wiped out.
>> Neither Windows 2000 nor Windows ME have really "lit a fire" in the
>market.
>> There are still some people who can barely edit a Word document under
>Windows
>> ME.
>
>There's still a lot of confusion in the market. That will slow down once
>Whistler is released. No more 9x.
>
Yes we know from past experience, "the upgrades will become more
popular if we stop selling what they want and only provide the newer
stuff."
Most M$ upgrades since 95 have been forced that way.
>> Corporations like Dell now have to choose whether to cut production
>capacity
>> and forfeit all hopes of margins in order to keep Windows ME on every
>single
>> machine sold. The machines sold to corporate customers have to be
>configured
>> with Windows 2000 and Office, which are often "double-billed".
>
>Because many clients WANT that. There is also the option to buy systems
>without it.
>
As a customer I often ask for the "privilege" of paying twice for
something I need to operate my business.
It makes the profits of the supplier so high that they spend a lot
of their valuable time thinking up more things I can pay twice for.
>> Consumer companies ranging from Banks to Insurance companies to Web sites
>are
>> suddenly being squeezed into choosing between cutting jobs or cutting
>> Microsoft.
>
>Well then, if that's true, MS's bottom line won't look too good. Care to
>make a wager on it?
>
M$ revised their revenue projections downward last quarter. It was
the first of a series.
As for a wager, what could a Sock Puppet offer me ? M$ crapware ?
GUFFAW!!!
>> going for thousands of dollars per link. By the time Windows 95 came out
>in
>> August, there ware already 10 million people accessing the web via AOL,
>> Prodigy, and local BBS operators who had converted their FIDO and WildCat
>> sites to Linux systems.
>
>We've already gone through this Rex. I already proved you wrong some time
>ago.
>
>AOL didn't start offering internet access until 1996, and Prodigy came
>later. Local BBS's didn't offer internet access in any way other than UUCP
>and email indirectly.
>
I was logging in to my local ISP in 1994. He started offering shell
accounts to his BBS customers and quickly found that it was a bigger
draw than his BBS alone had been so he converted to being a full
time ISP.
>> Ironically, it was Linux that was driving the economic expansion of the
>last
>> 7 years, which was actually riding a wave created by UNIX throughout the
>> 1980s and early 1990s.
>
>????? The fact that you can say this with a straight face amazes me.
>
Your belief that the Internet did not exist till Billy rewrote
"The Road Ahead" in 95 is what amazes me.
Is M$ giving courses in revised history to Sock Puppets now ?
>I'm just not in the mood for another round of correcting you on your massive
>falsifications Rex. Please, go on.
>
Keep on ignoring the lights and bells long enough and you might get
hit by that train.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:49:15 -0800
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:42:13
> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> > 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.
> >
> >Another example of "Windows won the benchmark, so the benchmark must
> >suddenly be wrong".
>
> Hardly. Windows lost the benchmark, to begin with. But I think
In the past ? Sure. This is now, and it's at the top of the list. Heck, even
IBM [which invests millions of USD in Linux] to try to beat Compaq turned to
Windows 2000.
Why oh why didn't they use a Linux cluster to destroy and humiliate Compaq
and Microsoft ? It's not like they didn't have the money.
> Giuliano's point was that it isn't a useful benchmark, so the fact that
> Windows lost it so badly, only being able to post reasonable numbers by
> pitting a Windows cluster against single machine Unix systems, doesn't
> cast as bad a light on your "favrit OS in the whole world", Chad.
Where is the UNIX cluster that kills
> >It's really sad when you guys can't accept a major fact. Just because
> >you don't like that Windows is the highest performing transactional
> >processing OS doesn't mean that you can just throw it away.
>
> But that's a lie, Chad. It isn't a question of wanting to avoid the
> truth; we'll proclaim the truth from the rooftops. You're the one who
I don't think that anyone has the monopoly on truth [or deception for that
matter]. Anyone who thinks so is deluded, IMO.
> wants to hide it. Pretty humorous, of course, how you are trying to
> "hide it in plain sight", by pretending that TPC shows Windows as
> high-performance, when the actual results are precisely the opposite.
> But more annoying than anything else. And getting tiresome.
Well it's at the top of the table [faster], and less expensive to boot.
Advocacy aside, it is better to be slower [for whatever reason] and more
expensive ?
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
