Linux-Advocacy Digest #509, Volume #32 Mon, 26 Feb 01 23:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (.)
Re: Time for a Windows reinstall! (WJP)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("gary")
Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Time for a Windows reinstall! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 16:18:35 +1300
> > Good points, well backed up, thoroughly beyond doubt. You've convinced
> > me.
>
> the facts speak for themselves - it's been documented at hotmail, and
> microsoft.com.
> People working at hotmail have confirmed it, even slashdot has confirmed it.
For starters, I've seen multiple DIFFERENT 'confirmations' on slashdot,
and widely differing stories spread about the media. Hotmail apparently
runs on FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, NT4, Win2k, Linux, and I bet there's a
story about how MS had to convert the thing to CBM BASIC so they could
run it on C64s and claim it was running far too slow on the test linux
boxen.
As for getting the details from microsoft.com or hotmail.com, MS would be
only too happy to lie if it was in their best interests, so they are an
unreliable source of information. Just check out Billy testifying in the
court case!
Journalism is obviously just as biased these days (you can find a web
page or magazine to support any point of view, if you're willing to
exclude other pages and mags) so the stories on 'news' sites can't be
trusted.
Basically, there are probably three or four people on the entire planet
who *REALLY* know how Hotmail runs. Effectively what I want to know is
why should we believe you're one of those people?
------------------------------
From: WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time for a Windows reinstall!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:31:46 -0600
On 26 Feb 2001 15:33:22 -0700, Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a third party software
>> pkg called Nero screwed up and filled up your HDD. Now your pc runs slow and
>> you blame MS for this. How is MS to blame for this ?
>
>You do know that on UNIX a 100% full hard drive does not really mean
>100%, don't you? I've filled up numerous hard drives on UNIX writing
>files a lot bigger than 750MB (the size of the image file that Nero
>created). I've never had a problem with the system upon deleting the
>offending file. Why does Windows suffer from this problem? I've
>never heard of an OS that will fall apart when the hard drive is
>filled up. If an OS can be rendered almost useless because a single
>app filled the hard drive, that OS is a POS.
>
>Not that there weren't other problems before the above issue. Windows
>was beginning to run like sludge before this. This latest problem
>simply finished the job.
Aaron:
I would think that problem you are having is mainly because of the
inability of the Windows swap file to find adequate expansion space -
once you reach the point where that space comes into contention. I
would also suspect that operating system files have become corrupt as a
possible result of the lack of swap space.
Joel:
A point to ponder: without third party software, how would ANYONE fully
utilize their Windows computer? Does Microsoft sell CD writing
software? Do they provide antivirus software? How about those programs
which provide a semblance of network security, such as Zone Alarm or
Black Ice Defender? The lone CD provided by Microsoft Windows 95/98/ME
has not one of these programs. Heck, half of their CD is filled with
demonstration videos for kiddy, publishing, and, of course, their
"Works" software.
IMHO the key is not whether or not "one" is using third party software,
but how well the two are integrated and function as a viable solution to
the owner's setup and configuration. Along with this is the very good
possibility that one configuration will work perfectly with third party
software and this same configuration on a slightly different PC will
fall flat on its face.
I have been buying and using Microsoft products since 1992. I have
never seen the point in time where myself or any of my associates could
rely solely on what was provided by Microsoft. A perfect example of
this is the shareware program that is almost a necessity for ANY
computer user: one of the Zip/UnZip products.
The above are reasons why I now have a total hard drive dedicated to
Linux (SuSE 7.0). I am experiencing an "interesting" period of learning
and discovering the advantages of open source software.
Oh, and I also have OS/2 Warp 4.0 and Windows 3.11 installed on other
partitions - mainly for learning (Warp) and for legacy applications
(Windows 3.11). Even these operating systems have never nor will never
provide all the applications which will allow use of all my installed
equipment.
YMMV
Bill Powell
Management Systems Analyst (Retired)
------------------------------
From: "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:32:33 GMT
"gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gPDm6.1154$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:u6rm6.101$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
> > > [...]
> > > >> All of these things (floppy drive, disks, case, power supply, and a
> > good
> > > >> video card) COMBINED cost less than the price of a single copy of
> > Windows
> > > >> ME. Looks like you lose...
> > > >
> > > >Funny, I can't find all those things combined for $35
> > >
> > > Nor can you find ME for $35, list price. What is it, $89.99?
> >
> > Sorry, $50
> >
> > http://www.pricewatch.com/1/182/2715-1.htm
> >
>
> I thought we were talking about building a computer, not upgrading one?
> Lowest on pricewatch for that was $85, but that's for OEM. If you want it
> retail boxed, it's $185.
>
> Please refer to Brent's post:
>
> > I think 89.99 would be the upgrade...from my understaning, the full
> version
> > is around 180.00 ...at least it was with win98.
>
> Case in point: a copy of windows ME is less expensive than all of the
items
> you named.
>
Excuse me... a copy of windows ME is MORE expensive than all the items you
named.
I'm tired.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS?
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:50:16 -0600
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Patches for Windows 2000 Datacenter Server are hardware-specific and
> available from the original equipment manufacturer."
>
> Now I would be very surprised if event viewer contained hardware specific
> code. Does Microsoft have a policy of not providing security patches for
> Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, instead leaving it up to OEMs?
MS provides the patches to the OEM, but since the OEM provides hardware
specific patches in a service pack (No, the even log viewer patch isn't
hardware specific, but other patches in the service pack are) they are the
sole source for providing patches for those customers.
> Now we know Microsoft leaves first tier support up to OEMs, but making
> them responsible for providing or distributing security patches as well
> worries me. I consider the buck stops squarely at Microsoft's doorstep in
> relation to security vulnerabilities in their code.
>
> I'm sure Erik will be able to clear up any misunderstanding :-)
This is a matter of consistency. Would you prefer a customer that buys
multi-million dollar hardware have to jump through hoops, jumping from
vendor to vendor to find what they need?
I'm certain most of the OEM's demanded that they be the sole source of
patches.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:54:33 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Because the browser threatened their OS market.
>
> Makes no sense. If they were obviously doomed anyway, as you claim,
> there would be no need to spend millions to hasten their demise.
>
> In reality, they weren't doomed, and they did threaten Microsoft's
> market control. If Netscape succeeded it would make the OS more easily
> replaceable. That's why MS started their anti-Netscape campaign that
> got them into so much trouble.
Just because you threaten someone, doesn't mean you're not doomed.
A miniature schnauser might threaten a pitt bull, which is doomed?
> Presumably they would have to add some value or nobody would buy it.
Or drive their free competitors out of business by first producing a much
better product and giving it away, then when their competition is out of
business, charging for it.
> So, to summarize, your position is that MS was giving away IE just to
> help the poor downtrodden consumer who was being exploited by Netscape.
> I don't think anybody is going to buy that argument. Sorry.
Not at all. MS understood that you make money on the server. The client is
free. They have always done this with all their client/server products.
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:51:11 -0800
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> (BTW, Office 95 was significantly better than Office 2000)
>
Care to elaborate Giuliano? Interesting point. Or anyone else have
any opinions on this?
--
Bob - shooting the bozo bit at 550 MHZ :). Wheeeeee! ;)
Microsoft "Tech Support".
1) Re-boot
2) Re-boot
3) Re-install all your software
4) Buy the new release (again)
5) Go to 1
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:00:43 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:976bmc$drc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> : The definition says it's a queue of bytes between two processes. A file
is
> : most definately a queue of bytes. And it bridges two programs via their
> : stdin and stdout.
>
> Programs != Processes.
>
> The DOS style is actually a temporary storage between one process and
> ITSELF, because there is only one process in DOS. At different times it
> is populated by different program images, but it is only one process.
I see you didn't comment on my arguments about other OS's that also don't
have processes, but do have multitasking such as AmigaOS and MacOS <= 9.x
What about DR-DOS which multitasks DOS programs?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:54:29 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Not at all. MS understood that you make money on the server. The client is
> free. They have always done this with all their client/server products.
You meant to say that Windows NT Workstation and Windows 2000 Pro are
free???? Cool!
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS?
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:55:30 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> This is a matter of consistency. Would you prefer a customer that buys
> multi-million dollar hardware have to jump through hoops, jumping from
> vendor to vendor to find what they need?
>
> I'm certain most of the OEM's demanded that they be the sole source of
> patches.
You may be certain, but what is the basis of your certainty?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time for a Windows reinstall!
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:58:33 GMT
WJP wrote:
>
> A point to ponder: without third party software, how would ANYONE fully
> utilize their Windows computer? Does Microsoft sell CD writing
> software? Do they provide antivirus software? How about those programs
> which provide a semblance of network security, such as Zone Alarm or
> Black Ice Defender? The lone CD provided by Microsoft Windows 95/98/ME
> has not one of these programs. Heck, half of their CD is filled with
> demonstration videos for kiddy, publishing, and, of course, their
> "Works" software.
>
> I have been buying and using Microsoft products since 1992. I have
> never seen the point in time where myself or any of my associates could
> rely solely on what was provided by Microsoft. A perfect example of
> this is the shareware program that is almost a necessity for ANY
> computer user: one of the Zip/UnZip products.
>
> The above are reasons why I now have a total hard drive dedicated to
> Linux (SuSE 7.0). I am experiencing an "interesting" period of learning
> and discovering the advantages of open source software.
>
> Oh, and I also have OS/2 Warp 4.0 and Windows 3.11 installed on other
> partitions - mainly for learning (Warp) and for legacy applications
> (Windows 3.11). Even these operating systems have never nor will never
> provide all the applications which will allow use of all my installed
> equipment.
Good for you. A single-OS man is a computerized cripple.
Too bad Ataris and Commodores aren't so common anymore.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:07:38 -0600
"Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a9a5bf2$0$19260$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:fG_l6.1224$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
> >
> > Jezuz Charlie. Stop being so stupid.
> >
> > 1) MS has not owned Hotmail for a decade, it's only owned it for 3
years.
> > 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 ?
There are 3 single-tasking graphic servers that run a web server called
"boa" under single-user mode FreeBSD. This gives them the ability to simply
server HTTP graphic files (which are completely static and don't require any
multitasking) very fast.
Although, it appears that they're starting to phase even these out. Check
out:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=64.4.18.24&submit.x=72&submit.y=11
Then look at the history, you'll see it wobbles between Win2k and FreeBSD.
They may have even completely replaced it with Win2k, since the last record
of a change was a few weeks ago.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:03:28 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> 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.
The Judge probably enjoys his Microsoft Flight Simulator
(yet another Microsoft purchase) too much.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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 04:05:53 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> 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.
Can you cite a reference on these alleged facts, since you seem to
be "in the know", ahem?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:16:02 -0600
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a9adf0e$0$27547@reader5...
> >> I am quite sure you didn't mean to say that, but that's the way your
> >> statement parses. Care to clarify a little? Otherwise you'd be
> >> flamebait for all MS haters who'll keep on harping that the various
> >> incarnations of Windows keep getting slower for the same price.
> >
> > I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion?
> >
> Ok, In simpler terms then:
>
> 1. CPUs get faster while staying at the same price. I believe I saw you
> concede that point. If you didn't, I apologize, I am too tired to reread
> the whole thread.
Yes.
> 2. You get more memory at the same price, thus increasing performance
> (more memory, less swapping).
Currently. Memory prices are volatile though, and are dependant upon supply
and demand. Memory prices have been known to go way up, currently they're
in a large downswing because of massive overestimation of christmas
production. But still, compared to say, 6 years ago, memory prices are
quite cheap, yes.
> 3. OSs don't increase in performance, although they now run on faster
> hardware.
> Therefore the relative performance of OSs goes down.
I still don't follow this. When the OS runs on a faster computer, it's
performance goes up as well. You have stated only prices, and nothing
relating to performance.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
