Linux-Advocacy Digest #508, Volume #32 Mon, 26 Feb 01 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: [OT] .sig (Brent R)
Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS? ("Adam Warner")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux--First Impressions from a semi-newbie (Brent R)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Scott Gardner)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Scott Gardner)
Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (.)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Scott Gardner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 26 Feb 2001 20:45:02 -0600
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Jon Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <3a97347b$0$2432$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > ><snip good stuff>
> > > >>
> > > >> What I find hillarious about this is the author appearently
> > > >> has never heard of HOT MAIL and how Microsoft has been trying
> > > >> for the last decade to replace the FreeBSD servers which RUN
> > > >> HOTMAIL with Windows counterparts.
> > > >
> > > >given that hotmail isn't a decade old we find our very first problem
with
> > > >this lie.
> > >
> > >
> > > It might not be exactly 10 years old. It's pretty close.
> >
> > Not quite.
>
> Even if Hotmail were less than a year old...the fact remains that
> Mafia$oft has failed on TWO attempts to migrate it from Unix to
> their shoddy products.
Aaron you are a lying shitbag. You have absolutely nothing to support this
claim. And you know it. It's never been tried and when they did it, they
just did it. That part is documented via netcraft and people working at
hotmail. Unlike your desperate attempts at lies and fud which have been
proven wrong over and over.
Show me a single shred of proof of your claim otherwise continue to be known
as a complete idiot.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 26 Feb 2001 20:46:05 -0600
I agree, anyone thinking that an OS has no effect on the performance of a
database running on it is an idiot.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jon Johanson wrote:
> >
> > To ignore the performance of an OS underlying a database indicates your
> > complete lack of how software works as well as your ignorance of the
real
> > world interaction between hardware/software/users.
>
> Idiotic.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:48:35 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > What part of United States Army do you not understand?
> > >
> > > The US Army defends the US Constitution, which secures my right,
> > > by virtue of being in the US, to say anything I damn well please
> > > on USENET or any other place.
> >
> > [Snip other nonsense]
> >
> > Wonderful. Only a week or so after I empty my killfile, another
> > fuckhead Ugly American prick shows up.
>
> Please do not think Aaron is representative of all Americans. All countries and
> all cultures have their share of people like Aaron.
I'm an American too, and sadly I'd have to disagree. America breeds more
immature, online, shit-talkers than any other country online.
> --
> The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
> The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
> consistency.
> -- Albert Einstein
> ------------------------
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS?
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:48:23 GMT
Hi Otto,
> And your post was cross-posted in Cola why?
The question you should ask is why I decided to cross-post to
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy. And the answer is because I wanted to give
NT advocates the opportunity to respond.
I am also interested to know if Redhat or other Linux vendors require OEMs
to distribute their own security patches. Or other UNIX vendors in general.
> Besides, W2K DC servers are available from OEMs only and the server is
> certified by MS. Any fixes to the OEM code need to come from the OEM
> manufacturer and those changes are certified by MS. No matter what your
> trying to imply in your posting, MS is part of the procedure.
So give me some more information then. Mine only came from a statement by
Microsoft on their own site. Are all the security patches that standard
Windows 2000 users enjoy direct from Microsoft available right now from
individual Datacenter OEMs? And who is ultimately responsible for providing
those patches in a timely manner? If it is no longer Microsoft ("Don't ask
us for security patches, go see your OEM") then I consider that a concern.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 26 Feb 2001 20:50:02 -0600
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >> 2) Hotmail has been running entirely on Win2k except for 3
single-tasking
> >> graphic servers since July.
>
> > I'm on your side of this Erik and don't have reason to doubt you but can
you
> > help me find info about your item #2. I know they've switched all the
front
> > end servers to w2k but I heard the backend application itself was
running on
> > solaris. Are you saying they've converted the application itself ?
>
> I don't know where to find "reliable" information, certainly not at
> www.netcraft.com, because of the eight .hotmail.com servers, it lists
> five NetBSD, and three W2k (one of which, incidentally, is named
> "gfx")
The "ad" servers run BSD still - why? The ad servers are what put up the
banner ads. No one cared what they ran. Those will be migrated later - they
are unimportant.
The GFX servers provide all the images and run W2K.
The OE servers provide all the dymanic HTML and run W2K.
These are load balanced farms of W2K boxes.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux--First Impressions from a semi-newbie
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:52:04 GMT
Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> Well, I've installed RH Linux on my home computer, and feel that from
> the perspective of a "Linux Newbie", I can comment intelligently as a
> user. My bachelor's is in Computer Science Engineering, but I didn't
> really have to use much of my knowledge so far, so I don't think that
> should count against my "linux newbie" status.
> First of all, the install went fine. Booted off of the
> CD-ROM, and everything went flawlessly from there. Had to provide a
> driver disk from Promise for my RAID array to be recognized, but it
> was all point-and-click from there.
> Now for my opinion of the operating system and install in
> general:
>
> Goods:
>
> System has not crashed once. I had one program under X hang up, but I
> was able to terminate the offending program, and the OS kept right on
> humming.
>
> The control over the operating system in general is awesome. Being so
> connected to the machine is great, and I can tell I haven't even
> scratched the surface in terms of flexibility and power.
>
> All of it was free. The linux distro came with a book I bought about
> Linux.
>
> I can access my WinME partitions, as well as the shared folders on my
> wife's Windows computer through Samba, and she can access drives on my
> computer as well as my printers. (Some of them, at least, see "Others"
> section below)
>
> linux seems reasonably fast on my computer. With a PIII-600, I wasn't
> expecting any less, but still please that performance was at least on
> par with Windows, even running Enlightenment under X.
>
> I don't have C: and D: and E: drives. With the linux directory tree,
> I can mount several drives onto the tree, and it becomes completely
> transparent that the files I'm accessing are on separate drives.
>
> Others:
>
> Hardware support is not as good as with Windows. My AGP video card
> was supported under X using the generic SVGA driver, but none of the
> acceleration options were available. Likewise, neither of my two
> high-end sound card chipset were supported. I've bought a used Sound
> Blaster PCI 64 to solve that. My modem isn't supported, but I didn't
> know at the time I bought it that it was a "winmodem", so I can't
> blame linux for this. My biggest hardware gripe so far is that my
> network card isn't supported under 2.2, but it is under 2.4.2.
> Problem is, since I had to supply my RAID device driver during the
> initial of RH with kernel 2.2, I can't incorporate support for my RAID
> card under kernel 2.4.2, so for right now, I have to choose between my
> Ethernet card and my RAID array.
>
> "Install" routines for third-party software aren't as polished. I've
> installed StarOffice 5.2 with no problems, but Wordperfect 8.0 still
> eludes me. All the helpfile says is to copy the compressed file to an
> empty directory, unzip it, and run the "Runme" file. I did that, and
> get a bunch of errors that directories could not be created or that
> they weren't found. Not what I'm used to coming from Windows.
Were you logged in as root?
> Having to know *any* command-line instructions is something that's
> been driven out of my by five generations of Windows. My college days
> are coming back to me, but it still requires more effort than Windows.
What's scary is that after a while you start THINKING in command-line
instructions. That's when you know it's time for a drink...
<snip>
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:52:49 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:05:24 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> These are the much same criteria my state uses before anyone is issued a
>> concealed-carry permit, and most states are equally strict, if they even
>> allow concealed-carry at all.
>
>It is not about concealed guns, but guns in general.
>
Okay, then simplify the argument. Why don't you wan't me to own a
gun?
>
>> Tell me exactly WHY you think that I, and
>> people like me, should not be allowed to own and carry handguns??
>
>How can you guarntee that someone unbalanced does not buy a gun?
>
>-Ed
My idea of freedom isn't about guarantees. "Someone unbalanced" can
buy a car, or a baseball bat, or a brick, and inflict harm on others
with it. I just don't feel that depriving EVERYONE of something just
because wackos can abuse it is the solution. Define some minimum
standards, and let the responsible people enjoy the freedom.
Scott Gardner
LT US Navy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:55:10 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:04:04 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Again, you're showing your mindset. If the armed forces of a government
>> turned against the citizenry, the "mobile gun unit shelling you from 60
>> miles away" would be right in SOMEONE'S backyard, and if the armed
>> forces have declared war on the citizens, that someone would likely be
>> sympathetic to your cause. In my country at least, there are almost 300
>> million people, and only a few million in the armed services.
>> Considering that so much of our infrastructure is supported by
>> civilians, and the country is so huge, I can speak intelligently as an
>> officer in the United States military and tell you that if we were to
>> try such foolishness, we would be righteously fucked...
>
>
>Yes, but the civs don't need handguns to do that.
>
>-Ed
I disagree. I would put the armed forces up against the civilians and
give us pretty good odds, if I knew that the civilians didn't have any
firearms at all.
Scott Gardner
LT US Navy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:04:32 GMT
http://dailynews.netscape.com/mynsnews
/story.tmpl?table=n&cat=50300&id=200102261557000226907
The Department of Justice and 19 states argue
the findings of District Court Judge Thomas Penfield
Jackson should stand, citing evidence presented during 78
days of trial.
This paragraph of information is absolutely true.
19 states and the Department of Justice filed this action.
They argued the trial for 78 days.
On Day #1, if you go bother to go back and read the trial
notes, YOU DID NOT SEE JUDGE THOMAS PENFIELD JACKSON
making judgement on the validity of the DOJ's claims,
the 19 states claims, nor even Microsofts claims.
That's because Thomas Penfield Jackson was acting like
a judge should. He was going to JUDGE the TRIAL.
If you bother to read the new clips, there everywhere,
you will see that Microsoft is directly accusing
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of being BIASED and
against them the entire trial.
Here's one of the new Judges comments.
We have Judge Harry Edwards saying the following.
"You're going to replace one monopoly with another if
you're right," appeals court chief judge Harry Edwards told
government lawyers.
Elsewhere in the article we read this.
"You don't seriously assume that
you have competing middleware operations, do you?"
asked Edwards.
You know, the phone company was once a monopoly and
the government broke them up. We used to pay
over a buck a minute to call my Grandmothers house.
If she were alive today, I could call her for 5 cents
a minute. And considering inflation causing the price
of housing to go 6 times higher than then, the price
of gas to go 6 times higher than then, to pay 5 cent
a minute for longdistance is incredible.
I HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHERE IS THIS JUDGES BRAIN ANYWAY?
DOESN'T HE UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU BREAK MICROSOFT UP INTO
CHUNKS THEN YOU'VE CREATED COMPETION AND THERE WILL BE
NO MONOPOLY? THAT WHEN THEY BROKE UP THE PHONE COMPANY
THERE WERE NO NEW COMPANIES CREATED FROM THE DUST TO ESTABLISH
MONOPOLY POWER. ONLY THE PEICES REMAINED TO COMPETE!
DID HE ABSOLUTELY FORGET THAT THE ACTION FOR THE APPEAL
WAS TO STOP THE BREAKUP. THAT THE BREAKUP WAS WHAT THE
APPEAL WAS ALL ABOUT.
WHERE IS JUDGE EDWARDS BRAIN? WAS THE MAN BORN YESTERDAY?
OR IS THIS GUY ALREADY BIASED FROM DAY 1.
Jeffrey Minear is one of the DOJ attorneys being questioned.
We have this exchange from Judge Harry Edwards after he
questioned Jeffrey Minear about the "POSSIBILIY" of creating
just another monopoly if they broke Microsoft up.
"I can't say that it's inconceivable that a situation could
arise where there would be..." Minear answered before
Edwards cut him short with: "You haven't argued that."
It is obvious to me that Judge Harry Edwards IS BIASED against
the U.S. Governments actions and he's BIASED on the FIRST DAY!
Not 78 days, but the FIRST DAY.
Also I checked http://www.msnbc.com and noticed they had
NO COVER story on this on the front page.
That's amazing!
http://home.netscape.com/
That's where we find the lead of the article we've read.
And there's a poll which shows over 60 % of Americans
feel Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson was biased in his
trial of Microsoft.
Here are two more peices of the article you can read for
yourself
"I think the intriguing thing in the afternoon was the chief
judge led the charge (against the government's case) on
some of these issues," said William Kovacic, a professor of
antitrust law at George Washington University.
Intriguing, LED.... These are very interesting words.
Isn't it really the JOB of the MICROSOFT ATTORNEY'S TO DO THIS?
This judge hasn't even seen all the evidence for himself.
The trial has just started. If this were true then it would
be the post trial comments of the judge. These comments
would be made during the ruling section....
The judge's questions "did much more damage to the
government than they did to Microsoft," said Robert Lande,
a law professor at the University of Baltimore.
Robert Lande says it best.
It's just like the Republicans say, the government is corrupt and
evil.
Yeah right. 19 states file this action. Everybody was having
a coffee and a donought when all this ocurred. It was just
like the presidential elections in Florida. Nobody knew how
to make their ballot but they thought they were doing right.
19 states of elected officials were completely on drugs.
They were OFF their rocker. They ALL GOT BIASED at the SAME TIME
towards MICROSOFT.
And Jeffery Minear is one of them.
Even thought he wasn't at Jacksons trial, he's one of them.
He was just the specialist attorney the DOJ appointed to
handle this appeal trial.
This just stupify's me. It really does.
The Judge argues the point that to break up Microsoft will just
create ANOTHER monopoly?
Just like the phone company thing. They are all one big strange
monopoly who's went from $1.20 a minute to 5 cents.
Oh, and the phone company officials are all on drugs also.
http://judgelink.org/about/AdvisoryBd/Edwards.htm
There's the judges web site. Appointed by President Carter.
I am absolutely positive that if this attempt to break up
Microsoft does fail and justice is reduced that another
attempt will be made in the future.
The AT&T breakup BTW was actually initiated in 1958 and
finished in 1984 when the decree finally was approved.
Justice does happen. It sure isn't swift.
The we run into people like Judge Harry Edwards with
their contemptable logic and appearent lack of historical
knowledge, which lead me to conclude that we will end
up going around with Microsoft again in the future.
I don't think for one minute the appeal court is going
to give this trial a fair trial nor represent the best
interests of the American people.
Clearly they are not using their heads on day 1.
And this is not proceedural notions either.
The is pure bias from day 1.
And I ask how this happened?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:09:05 +1300
> > 4200 requests per second, if we assume about 512 bytes per request and
> > the server is serving up 2k static pages, could easily be done over a
> > single 100Mbit connection.
> >
> > 4200 * 512 + 4200 * 2048 = 10752000 bytes per second
> >
> > 10752000 * 8 = 86016000 bits per second, easily doable with 100Mb.
>
> Sure... assuming that a 100 mb/s ethernet connection has no problem with 86%
> effeciency.
What makes you think there would be a problem? Let's assume for the
moment that his hardware is up to the test.
> Given he's running a pentium pro 200 - did you think he's using
> a high end ether net switch.
I make no assumptions on his networking hardware based on the given CPU
details. What?
There's no reason he couldn't be running a decent 100Mb network at
home. Plenty of tech-heads pour large amounts of money into wiring up
their house. If I had a house, I'd want to spend money connecting it up
too.
> And are we to believe he's got 16 or more dual
> processor clients to actually GENERATE that much load? It's a lie. Plain and
> simple.
So you'll tentatively accept the idea that a single machine can pump out
4200 2k pages a second, but the idea that a single machine could generate
4200 512-byte identical requests is right out of the question? Where did
this 16 dual processor clients crap come from? If one machine can serve
them, one more machine can do the requests.
I'm not saying that this guy has proven Linux is the world's funkiest web
server, all I'm saying is what he says is theoretically possible, and
since this is a goddamn newsgroup and you have absolutely no knowledge of
how many of the posters spend their time and money, you can't possibly
know it's a lie.
You are, of course, entitled to believe that what he says is a lie, but
you can't say "It's a lie plain and simple" because you really do have no
idea (not meant in the offensive way ;)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:05:51 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:25:50 GMT, Giuliano Colla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Are you kidding? Latest distros (RH, Mandrake, Suse) if you install all
>the software take 4 to 6 GB of your HD. Not taking sources into account,
>of course.
I would dispute this. I just install RH 7.0, and the only options I
was given to install were Gnome, KDE, and Games, and I installed them
all. Total size was about 1 GB. The whole distro only came on 3
CD-ROMS, for goodness sakes. Even if all three were totally full
(about 650 Mb each), and assuming all three were compressed 2:1, the
total install wouldn't be more than 3.8 Gb, Never mind the fact that
all of the stuff on the third disc were duplicates of stuff on the
other two (newer versions of KDE, the kernel, etc...)
Scott Gardner
LT US Navy
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
