Linux-Advocacy Digest #547, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Breaking up is so very hard to do... ("Flacco")
Re: [OT] .sig (Brent R)
Re: Time for a Windows reinstall! (J Sloan)
Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Hijacking the IP stack ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (.)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Gary Hallock")
Re: why open source software is better ("vrml3d.com")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[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 23:21:17 -0500
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Exactly - microsoft's "bet the farm", "benchmark buster"
> > > > > > configuration with the special web cache in front of iis
> > > > > > is badly outperformed by AIX, and can't even match the
> > > > > > performance of the free Red Hat Linux system.
> > > > >
> > > > > Special cache? You mean some software anyone can buy and run outta
> the
> > > box?
> > > >
> > > > If it's not part of the base OS, nor part of the web server, then yes,
> > > > it is a "special cache"....
> > >
> > > You mean like tux?
> >
> > Nope, wrong again - Tux is not a cache, it's a web server.
> >
> > Can you spot the difference?
>
> I sure can. but, so what. Tux is a custom benchmark busting web server. SWC
Translation: Someone in the Linux community built a contrived piece of
software to compete against Microsoft's contrived configurations in
benchmark tests.
In other words, they got donkey-raped at their own game.
Boooooooooooooo fucking hooooooooooo
> is a web cache, a retail product available to anyone. It improves the
> performance of any IIS server it's put in front of. I hardly consider that
> "custom"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Breaking up is so very hard to do...
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:22:21 GMT
Upon hearing the news, Bill Gates, sitting erect in his oversized
throne-like office chair, clapped his bony hands together and gleefully
cried: "YAAAAY! Let the gang-rape of the software industry continue!"
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donovan Rebbechi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be honest, I don't know or care whether they will be broken up. Linux
> has done pretty well over the last few years and there's enough grass
> roots support that I don't think anything MS does will kill it. A lot of
> tactics that worked elsewhere (eg dumping) will not work very well
> against a free OS. They can spin all they like, but Linux has already
> enjoyed enough publicity and gained enough shelf space that people can
> and will find out for themselves.
What bothers me is the likelihood that MS will find some way to "freeze
out" free OS's, maybe through exclusionary deals and "intellectual
property" legislation. It may reach the point where, sure, you can have
Linux, but you need a copy of Windows XYZ on your system to get
consumer-oriented things done, like interacting with your bank, etc.
So, MS will still have "won" because you're required to own a copy of
Windows regardless of what you prefer to use on a daily basis.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:28:21 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Brent R wrote:
> >
> > chrisv wrote:
> > >
> > > Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm an American too, and sadly I'd have to disagree. America breeds more
> > > >immature, online, shit-talkers than any other country online.
> > >
> > > Idiot. That's only because there's more of us online. That, and we
> > > DO have the freedoms that many countires don't.
> >
> > Yeah we have so many more rights than Britain, Canada, France etc. etc.
> >
> > Dude, in America you can't even get a beer if you're under 21, but you
> > can be drafted into the military. You can ever buy a gun! Now that is
> > ridiculous!
> >
> > But, yes, I understand what you're saying, but still we have too many
> > parents that don't know what to do with their money so they give it to
> > their kids. This country is breeding spoiled little brats like flies.
> >
> > My mom is a teacher. She sees evidence of parents coddling their kids
> > everyday. She's runs into parental hostility every time she even
> > criticizes a kid. Do you think it's easy being a parent when most
> > parent's attitudes are "my little Jimmy would NEVER do that"?
> >
> > Well, most of these kids end up on AOL or whatever talking shit about
> > how America is the best country on earth because it can nuke every other
> > country on earth. I've seen it, and I'm embarrassed by it. And you
> > should be too.
>
> The difference between them and me is
>
> 1) I've worked for ALL of my money since the age of 10 years old.
> 2) I'm a combat veteran.
I'm really having trouble trying to remember how you being a veteran had
anything to do with this.
I never said you were one of them. Originally I stated my opinion that
the US tends to breed more online "bastard kids" than other countries.
That still doesn't mean that you never exhibit some of their undesirable
traits, most having to do with self-righteousness and immaturity. I'm
sorry but I have to say it.
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time for a Windows reinstall!
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:32:51 GMT
Goober wrote:
> Why are you all so down on win2k?
> An OS is a tool for running applications, nothing more, as long as it runs
> the programs I want to use, I can forgive a few minor f**ups.
Great, so why are you so down on Linux?
> I would us the OS best suited for a task, use linux for critical server
> tasks, and 2k for running the great apps that are available on it. With well
> written software, 2k is very stable, and I use it for running nuendo, a
> multi track audio app. Its probably the hardest a computer can work,
> constant heavy disk access combined with heavy cpu load from the plugins. A
> single millisecond pause by the computer can corrupt a recording, and I've
> had no problems. So whats the problem with it?
Dunno, I don't use win 2k except for the occasional pesky
word doc - for 99% of my work and play, I use Linux.
It runs fast, does everything I need, and never crashes -
So, to borrow a phrase, "what's the problem with it"?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure!
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:49:12 -0600
"Amphetamine Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I believe that the most recent story was based on multiple (many)
> sources, all current MS employees. They repeated the same statement
> about MS not being able to run Hotmail on NT after multiple tries and
> also stated that almost all of MS big websites are running on Unix,
> even after numerous attempts to get them running on MS software. All
> of the employees wished to remain anonymous.
Yet you can't provide a link. Here's the link to the original story, and
this is the same story every other person or site that claims this links to:
http://www.vnunet.com/News/52704
And no, it doesn't claim MS employess, but rather unnamed "sources" that are
mysteriously "close to Hotmail".
> Here are the facts from that article (from my notes).
What article? Provide the link.
> 1. Link Exchange. MS bought Link Exchange and tried to move it from
> Oracle over to SQL. They threw a ton of their best employees into the
> problem. After 2 months they gave up and put it on Oracle/Solaris
> where it remains. :)
Provide the link.
> 2. BCentral. This site runs on Free BSD, BSD/OS and Solaris. MS
> tried very hard to migrate it to NT and Win2K. They had to quadruple
> the servers to pull it off and they decided it was not worth it! :)
bCentral *IS* Link Exchange. MS renamed it.
And, again.. they've already moved it to Win2k. Looks like it's been that
way since at least June of last year.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.bcentral.com
> 3. Hotmail. Sure there are a few Win2K servers there but 99% of the
> site runs on Free BSD. :)
Been Win2k since August.
> 4. MSN!!!!!!! Yes, MS' own flagship site runs on Apache/Solaris! :)
Only the msn user homepages, which are farmed out to a third party.
> 5. BCentral's ad server is 100% Free BSD. :)
Again, Link Exchange, stop using the same items over and over. And it's
Win2k now.
> 6. WebTV is almost completely run on Solaris. :)
Not according to this:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.webtv.com&mode_w=on&mode_u=on&a
vg_days=90
> 7. An interesting tidbit: When MS announced the release of Win2K, MS
> issued a memo to all of its employees telling them to not even think
> about using it for production because it was too unstable!!!!!!! :)
A bald faced lie. MS encouraged their entire company to run Win2k in
production while it was still in beta.
> Since the sources were all current MS employees, they had to remain
> anonymous. Sorry but I forgot to write down the source of the article
> but it was one of the bit computer ezines that is very pro-MS. ;)
> Hehehehehe. This article came out, I believe, around November so
> things might have changed since then.
Do you enjoy just making this stuff up?
How about using a search engine?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:53:03 -0600
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <lOFm6.465$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Yes, of course. In order to provide a significant performance
> >> improvement. Otherwise why to make a new release?
> >
> >The 2.4 kernel only provides significant improvement on SMP systems, not
on
> >typical ones. Even then, this was more of fixing a deficiency rather
than
> >improving.
> >
> Not subtle enough Erik. It is too easy to see that you are hiding
> your private definition of "improvement" to be able to say "I never
> said that" after a few more posts.
I didn't say it wasn't improvement. I said it was more fixing a deficiancy
than improving. Both terms apply, but fixing the deficiancy has a higher
ranking in my estimation.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:02:32 -0600
Umm.. Berkeley's TCP/IP stack is free software. You can't "hijack" it.
It's free for whatever use you want, including use in closed source
applications. You don't even need to give them credit anymore as of a few
years ago.
In any event, MS does include Berkeley copyright notices in several of it's
TCP/IP apps, such as ftp and finger, etc.. The fact that they include those
in those programs, but not in the stack makes one think that perhaps they
may have used the berkeley stack as a guide, but not the actual code.
"Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have seen it here that Microsoft used a lot of BSD code in its
> networking. Specifically, someone here said that much of the IP stack
> in NT and Windows 2000 is really "borrowed" BSD code. There is a writer
> who is interested but is asking me for some concrete evidence of BSD
> code specifically in Microsoft networking code, particularly in their
> implementation of TCP/IP.
>
> Can anyone point me to an authoritative reference?
> --
> Bombeck's Rule of Medicine:
> Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:05:54 -0600
"Johannes Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why the hell do sysadmins use Win2k on their servers? What do I need a
> GUI for to have a great server machine? What do I need pretty icons
> and plug & play and all that crap for?
>
> Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
> dumb to handle the real thing.
Why do you need plug-n-play? You don't put adapters in your servers? No
SCSI cards? No Tape Backups? No Modems or Network Cards?
------------------------------
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: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:01:02 +1300
> > What makes you think there would be a problem? Let's assume for the
> > moment that his hardware is up to the test.
>
> Dude... he's running a pentium pro 200 - it CANNOT generate that much data.
> Hell, the bus he's on can't generate that much bandwidth.
Give me some numbers, show me the proof. What bus are you talking about?
The CPU bus? ISA bus for the network card? Were there any PPro
motherboards supporting PCI?
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:58:35 +0500
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <mpVm6.70808$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is contrary to the press release that came out earlier in 2000 from
> IBM+Microsoft that said that IBM was going to be deploying Win2K Pro to
> thousands of their desktops.
>
> I can find the URL, I suppose, if you don't believe me.
>
> I never heard anything about the server side, but IBM has a "dog food"
> policy, so it wouldn't suprise me if they didn't allow anything other
> than their own software on the servers.
>
It is true that new Thinkpads have W2K installed by default. But Linux
is being installed on many of those Thinkpads as we speak. And many
people I know are happy to get rid of Windows. Just because Windows
comes pre-installed doesn't mean it is actually used.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "vrml3d.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:07:16 -0500
> The subject line for this message should be "why open source software
> is better for the *customer*".
No, it should be "why open source software is better for the customer in the
short run". Anything that drives producers out of the market in the long
run is bad for consumers in the long run, business cycles not withstanding.
Anecdotal evidence suggests a serious decline in shareware applications,
with open source an obvious culprit. Fewer apps, fewer choices. Sorry I
don't have numbers to back it up. That's why it's only anecdotal.
--Steve
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:18:20 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97h62h$gso$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:97frbg$alg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : "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
> :>
> :> The definition of a pipe as an interprocess tool is very old and
> :> predates the use of threads, so it doesn't mention them. But when
> :> it comes down to it, a thread is half of what makes a process.
> :> A process is an execution thread plus a walled-off memory space.
> :> The only difference between a thread and a process is that memory
> :> space.
>
> : Hmm.. was I blind when you asserted:
>
> :> :> Programs != Processes.
>
> : ???
>
> : Now, here you are claiming that Programs == Processes.
>
> Bullshit. Where the fsck did you get that from? Do you actually
> know what program, thread, and process actually mean? I admitted
> that threads share some properties with processes. How you twisted
> that into "programs == processes" I have no freakin' clue.
An Amiga task is a program, much like running code in DOS is a program
(TSR's are seperate programs that run as well). Multiple threads are
multiple programs to the Amiga.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
