Linux-Advocacy Digest #578, Volume #32 Thu, 1 Mar 01 12:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (pip)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("al")
ahem :) (Bobert Big Bollocks)
Re: The Windows guy. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Dr.
Peanut)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: State of linux distros (Karel Jansens)
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: KDE or DOJ ? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:43:17 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Screwed up? I installed Gnome. In fact, I used the handy Helix Gnome
> installer which made it pretty brainless.
>
> According to you, however, it must've been the culprit and installed
> my Gnome incorrectly, right?
>
> As far as Linux is concerned, Gnome is one of the primary desktops for
> Linux. It's a sad commentary that one of the primary and most popular
> GUIs for Linux is so big riddled and unstable.
>
Chad, would you please enlighten us, why LINUX is bad if you are too
dumb to install Gnome correctly on SOLARIS ?
Can anyone imagine someone more dumb then our beloved Chad,
the shame of the windtrolls?
Nice try, Chaddy-boy, do better next time
--
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Win 95,
Win NT 4.0 or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:09:09 +0000
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> al wrote:
>
> > http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20143
> >
> Bullshit
No this if obviously quite true!!!!
For every NT server you'll need at least 3 others for crash protection,
and
you'll only discover this after some time - hence the growth. Right???
Besides, how does anyone know Linux deployment figures? Its all silly!
------------------------------
From: "al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:13:26 -0500
It bugs you to see the almighty Linux being pushed away by Windows, doesn't
ti ?
And don't forget 2000 was the worst MS's year and the best Linux's year and
they still didn't make
any inroads.
So what will happen when MS releases .NET, Visual Studio.NET, Windows XP,
Office XP,
XBOX, ... this year ? Their market share will be even higher.
bye
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> al wrote:
>
> > http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20143
> >
> Bullshit
>
> --
> The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Win 95,
> Win NT 4.0 or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
>
------------------------------
From: Bobert Big Bollocks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ahem :)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:16:09 GMT
ahem :)
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:22:39 -0500
Marten Kemp wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > Marten Kemp wrote:
> > >
> > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 27 Feb 2001 09:09:33 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
> > > > >Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >But the argument I've just offered is pretty much the same as the one
> > > > >you objected to. I'm officially confused now.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's completely different. Read the other argument. The other argument
> > > > said (essentially) that "DOS pipes can't do everything that UNIX pipes
> > > > can do, therefore they are not pipes". This argument is obviously
> > > > inadequate (unless you use "UNIX pipe" as a definition of pipe, which
> > > > sort of defines the argument into triviality)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> > > > elflord at panix dot com
> > >
> > > Actually, neither are *real* pipes. CMS PIPELINES is one of the three
> > > most powerful environments in the known universe, along with REXX and
> > > XEDIT. Oh, we're talking about PCs here? Then go on arguing.
> > >
> > > Sorry, couldn't help it. At least you'll have the opportunity to
> > > disparage mainframes instead of each other.
> > > [grins and dons Nomex underwear]
> > > *Real* operating systems can run other operating systems, including
> > > copies of themselves. *Real* machines can have a dozen processors, a
> > > dozen or so gigs of memory and several terabytes of data on a single
> > > box.
> >
> > Linux can do that.
> >
> > >
> > > -- Marten Kemp
> > > VM/ESA systems admin
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > ICQ # 3056642
>
> How does run Linux as a guest of Linux?
> -- Marten Kemp
VMWare.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:20:17 +0100
al wrote:
> It bugs you to see the almighty Linux being pushed away by Windows,
> doesn't ti ?
> And don't forget 2000 was the worst MS's year and the best Linux's year
> and they still didn't make
> any inroads.
> So what will happen when MS releases .NET, Visual Studio.NET, Windows XP,
> Office XP,
> XBOX, ... this year ? Their market share will be even higher.
>
> bye
>
Not at all, because I know that this is just BS.
Wintendo might be good for a gaming-console, but thats about it.
Wait until someone writes the XP-deregister virus, encounter the
uproar then. 2001 will be the start of an MS avalanche, right.
And MS is just in it.
--
begin LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.txt.vbs
I am a signature virus. Distribute me!
end
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 01 Mar 2001 16:42:05 +0000
"al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And don't forget 2000 was the worst MS's year and the best Linux's year and
> they still didn't make
> any inroads.
Apart from increasing their share of the server market from 25% to 27%.
An almost identical growth rate to that of NT server.
What I want to know is: if Microsoft increased their share of the
desktop market from 89% to 92%, what were those 3% using before?
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: Dr. Peanut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:45:00 -0500
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 04:14:54 -0500, unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The following are the opinions of the author, no more no less...
>
>You don't understand how serious of a threat Linux is to Microsoft.
The serious threat that IDC numbers recently reported shows to have an
AMAZING 1% of the desktop market and to have also grown an AMAZING 4%
more than Microsoft on the server side? Given the obvious price
differences that's downright pathetic.
>Microsofties are fond of pointing to the overwhelming presence of
>windows on the desktop to show Microsoft's good health, but this is
>an oxymoron. Microsoft is their own worst enemy on the desktop.
>Win ME sales are lagging at 20% of Win98, and WIn2K is a non-
>starter for corporate usage (after all it took 5 years to debug NT4,
>why upgrade now?) Microsoft is trying to milk a few more dollars
>out of the suckers, uh, I mean faithful microsoft users with another
>featureless upgrade called Win XP (extremely pointless?)
Windows is Windows. People are fairly happy with Microsoft OS's and
software going back to Windows 95 still. They don't see a big reason
to upgrade but certinaly are still using Microsoft's product. Most of
Microsoft's sales depend on the growth of new PC sales simply because
they pretty much own the market. It's hard to grow your market share
when you own 92% of the desktop computer market. (Again, IDC numbers)
Windows XP is also hardly a featureless upgrade even if Microsoft
freezes adding any new features tomorrow.
>But why do you think their stock is worth 1/3 of what it was a year ago?
A little anti-trust trial combined with lower than expected sales of
new PC's?
Let me ask you...
Why is Redhat, VA, etc stock worth what, 1/10th of what it was a year
ago? Less? Why are they laying off people? Why did Corel bail out of
Linux?
Lets not get into stock prices here for your own good.
>Because anyone with two functioning braincells realizes that microsoft
>is a dying company, and is dumping them.
Again, this dying company grew 20% last year in the server market, 4%
on the desktop market. (which brings their total market share to 92%)
>Remember, though, that Microsoft isn't making one penny from the people
>who just keep using Win 98, duh....
If they're not happy with Windows then why are they still using it?
Their "old" copy of Windows 98 seems to be working pretty well for
them.
The problem for Microsoft is that an "old" PC from two years ago
running Windows 98 is a very good PC still for a huge segment of their
market.
When the time comes for them to upgrade that machine you can bet
they'll want Windows XP and not Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:35:20 +0000
Craig Kelley wrote:
> I find myself using way too many eval statements when using tcl. It's
> pretty ugly that way (I haven't used it in about 3 years though, so I
> suppose it could have changed in that time).
I use hardly any[*], and there are a few places (canvas item coordinates,
most notably) that now can take their input as lists.
Donal.
[* I don't know whether this is due to programming style or kind of app
being written though. :^) ]
[** I can genuinely feel smug about that bit. ]
--
"Windows is a car with square wheels (architecture) and a huge engine (hype,
etc.), capable of of making the car move despite the square wheels. Linux
is a car with round wheels but a small engine, capable of making the car go
despite the small engine." -- John Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: 1 Mar 2001 16:39:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Personally, I prefer Solaris because it has co-herancy and consistancy
>between applications, the example would be the copy and paste example
>(posted a while back), I can copy, cut, paste etc with out a problem, vs.
>Linux un-consistant short cut keys which changes in each application, and
I take it that you mean "while I use CDE", right? You /do/ know that KDE
and Gnome are available for Solaris? You also know that such behaviour
is up to the programmer of the application?
If an application with a "non-standard" keybinding in Linux gets ported
to Solaris, the keybinding isn't going to change all of a sudden. Also,
CDE is not Solaris specific (it *is* available for Linux) and even in
Solaris you dont have to use it (I use an extremely lightweigt ctwm
which is customized precisely to my behaviour).
>yes I know I am posting using Windows 2000 using LookOut! Express 5 (can't
>be forked installing and alernative one) because I am waiting for my SUN
>Machine to arrive (hopefully by next week).
Using Outleak is no excuse for bad quoting behaviour.
[snipped integral quote]
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein
------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:52:51 -0500
Reply-To: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snip>
> Red Hat Linux is consistent, and easy to use. BSD is splintered into
> several types of distributions:
>
> netbsd
> freebsd
> openbsd
> bsdi
> ....
FreeBSD is developed by a single team of developers, including the kernel,
whereas Linux is a trademark of a single person, and the kernel is
completely under the guidance and control of that single person. OpenBSD is
a spinoff of NetBSD (if I have my facts straight) that has focused on
security, and has gone through a complete source code audit, and regularly
audits its source code. BSDi is the commercial side of the BSD world, these
days.
But as far as splintering is concerned, if I may offer the following
>From Linux.org....In order as appears on their site:
BestLinux, BlueCat, Caldera, Connectiva, Corel, Debian/Gnu, Dragon, Easy,
Elfstone, Genrus, Hard Hat, Icepack, Linux Antarctica, Libranet, Mandrake,
LinuxOne, LinuxPPC, Linux Pro, LinuxWare, LuteLinux, MaxOS&Trade, MKLinux,
Platinum, Progeny Debian, RedHat, Redmond Linux, Rock Linux, RT-Linux,
Slackware, Sphinx, Stampede, Storm, SuSE, TurboLinux, Yellow Dog, Yggdrasil.
And then there are the mini/specialty distributions:
Armed Linux, Astaro Security Linux, Coyote, Chainsaw, DOS Linux, File Print
& CD Server Linux, KYZO, FlightLinux, Grey CAt, hal91 Floppy Linux, Immunix
OS, JB, Linux Embedded, Monkey Linux, Peanut, Phat, Pygmy, ThinLinux, TINY
Linux, tomsrbt, Trustix Secure Linux, White Dwarf, WinLinux2000, Whole
Linux, ZipHam.
If BSD is splintered, what would you call Linux? Sawdust?
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:52:39 -0500
"B.B." wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> @> Hitting "next article" doesn't save the already-wasted bandwith
> @> the sig is taking up.
> @
> @You miss the point entirely.
> @
> @The purpose of the .sig is to communicate a message.
> @
> @That message is not very well communicated if it's never presented.
>
> I thought the body of the article was supposed to communicate a
> message. The .sig was to remind the reader who wrote it.
That's your short-sighted way of looking at things...
> Either way, that really has nothing to do with wether or not you're
> wasting huge quantities of bandwidth. To address that: You're not--it's
> only text. Just one of the millions of binaries posted a day takes up
> more than all the .sigs from all your articles for the last few weeks.
> However, your .sig is extremely annoying.
Check out the bandwidth consumed by ONE jpeg and get back to me.
>
> --
> B.B. --I am not a goat! [EMAIL PROTECTED] @airmail.net
--
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: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:49:16 +0100
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> Dumb question perhaps, but what technological innovations are
> Microsoft noted for? (And which ones did they actually invent first,
> as opposed to stealing ideas from Unix, Apple, Xerox PARC, or such?)
>
I've given up on that challenge. So _what_ did they invent already?
(Besides the promo-display for a joystick that goes "Mi-mi-mi-microsoft!")
(*)
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
]]] "Go go gadget linux!" Zzzooommm!! [[[
(*) Funny anecdote: friend of mine who doesn't know anything about
'computers and stuff' saw the display and asked about it. I replied that
Microsoft also made software and she said: "They're not very good at it,
right?" She thought the tape stuttered.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:56:50 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <IY1n6.13991$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
> >
> >The phone company was granted a monopoly, Charlie, much like your gas
> >company and your water company are today. The fact that you could call your
> >grandmother for a nickel isn't the same the price of housing or gas. It
> >would be the same if you could put 1000 houses in the place that 1 house
> >occupied 20 years ago, or get 10,000 miles per gallon of gas in your car
> >today, but you can't, and it isn't.
> >
>
> Sir,
>
> The BELL comapanies became companies BECAUSE they had no regulatory
> agency to govern them. You are totally wrong.
>
> They were NEVER granted a MONOPOLY.
>
> No company has ever been GRANTED a MONOPOLY.
>
My understanding is that AT&T, and all of its subsidiary companies,
were granted a monopoly by Congress. In exchange, they were prohibited
from any commercial activity in the computing arena (which is one reason
why Unix was not sold as a commercial product until after the break-up...)
> The term MONOPOLY is a legal term assigned companies who've violated
> the publics trust.
>
> >I know your capacity is limited, Charlie, but maybe you should think about
> >that for a while. The costs of communication and computing power are not
> >driven by real estate or resources, and are fundamentally different than the
> >costs of housing and energy.
> >
> >-- Mike --
> >
>
> Please read the legal definition for the term MONOPOLY I've posted
> a half dozen times on this thread.
>
> MONOPOLY power is assigned to those companies who have violated public
> trust in the marketplace.
>
> MONOPOLY power is the term assigned to Microsoft and is pending
> the appeal.
>
> If the test of the term sticks, Microsoft will be guilty of MONOPOLY POWERS
> and will be fractionated.
>
> If it doesn't, then Microsoft will end up having to follow other court
> ordered guidelines such as the one's they were ordered to follow in
> the past and broken!
>
> And because of this cycle of stupidity, Microsoft will eventually
> achieve it's ultimate goal of attaining MONOPOLY POWER status whether
> they suceed on this go around or not.
>
> Truely the leadership of Microsoft has modeled their business plan
> on the famous Monty Python skit, "NITWIT OLYMPICS".
>
> In the end they will all shoot themselves in the head.
>
> Charlie
--
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: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:57:45 -0500
Reefer wrote:
>
> >
> > you DON'T HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH THE SETTINGS. It works without that
> > effort, if you accept the default look. It (along with Gnome) *will*
> > kill winblows.
>
> No no, u got i wrong there, called Windows ...as in "superior" to u...
Too many bong hits there, reefer?
--
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: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:01:03 -0500
Reply-To: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Red Hat Linux is consistent, and easy to use. BSD is splintered into
> several types of distributions:
Besides, Red Hat is not Linux, nor is Corel "Linux" anymore than "Debian" is
Linux. Linux is a kernel.
They're companies who assembled complete distrubutions around a single
kernel.
To paraphrase from Debian, a complete, UNIX-like operating system had
existed for quite some time, but only needed a kernel to tie it all
together. Linus' kernel was just that. The final piece to the puzzle.
Linux, beyond the kernel trademark, is a legion of distributions, generally
all having different installation tools, procedures, configuration tools
(linuxconf, yast, etc), different package formats (.rpm, .deb. tgz (for
slackware)). All of the BSD's, if i am not mistaken, all use the
"ports-tree" method, these days, for example. And they're all consistent
with each other.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:05:04 GMT
Said Jon Johanson in alt.destroy.microsoft on 26 Feb 2001 07:57:04
[...]
>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.
Sounds like a very carefully contrived point, proffered by someone who
doesn't want their bullshit pointed out.
>> That being said, there is one thing that is not reflected in TPC
>benchmarks,
>> which IS OS related, is stability. NT is no match for any UNIX for
>stability.
>
>Oh really - and you seem to forget that these tests are running the
>machines, by definition, at their very utmost limits for hours on end. And
>they are run time and time again. And if the system should crash they have
>to report this and you'll see there are no such reports.
Are you sure? What auditing is performed to ensure that crashed runs
are not ignored?
>If NT were so
>unstable, how is it possible for these runs to be successful let alone world
>record setting? It's been oft said that a typical 2 day TPC run is the
>equivilent of 2 years of average user activity and a medium sized business.
So even if the benchmark doesn't crash the system, it seriously has NO
baring at all on real world performance, is that what you're saying?
[...]
>But, just like testing a car's top speed or how quickly it can brake are
>things that most people do not need to be able to do or will commonly use -
>but you use these to find out who's the best at the limits.
Well, if the came out saying that its NT, they were rigged, without a
doubt.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:05:05 GMT
Said Amphetamine Bob in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 27 Feb 2001
[...]
>> > 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.
>
>What is that supposed to mean? Dog food?
Its a reference to the slang that Microsoft uses (unofficially,
internally) for using Microsoft software, "We have to eat our own dog
food."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
