Linux-Advocacy Digest #5, Volume #34 Fri, 27 Apr 01 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Chad Myers")
Cow Seeds! (Humor) Way OT (ForEnglishPress2)
Re: Windows 2000 Rocks! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Chad Myers")
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman (Dylan Thurston)
Re: Windows 2000 Rocks! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows 2000 Rocks! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows is a virus (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Terry Porter)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:55:15 GMT
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 02:16:06 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <9c9f5s$7ol$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JoFi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... <snip> >
> >> >> Tell me Jon,
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you achieve 5 9s *regularly* with server software that has been
> >> >> out for just over a year? Remember that 5 9s reliability is a
> >> >> statistical measure, and your sample is too small to be trustworthy.
> >> >> Once again, someone who knows virtually nothing about advanced server
> >> >> concepts can beat you on simple logic. You're not very smart are you?
> >> >> One good crash and your much-touted W2k servers are down to 4 9s *at
> >> >> best*.
> >> >>
> >> >> Mart
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > So your saying that 1000's of servers giving 5 9's reliability for 1-2
> >> > years is not good enough. Whats makes you think that years 3-4 will be
> >> > any different. Do you have ANY issues which could arise in year 3 and
> >> > not in year 1 or 2?
> >> >
> >> Ok,
> >>
> >> 1. Jon didn't qualify how many servers he had in his setup, so I
> >> obviously can't comment on that, and neither can you, unless you *are*
> >> Jon Johansen.
> >> 2. 1-2 years? FYI Windows 2000 was introduced in February 2000. I don't
> >> know if Datacenter Server was available right from the start but given
> >> that it was, that's 1 year and 2 months, nowhere *near* 2 years. I remain
> >> steadfastly convinced that 1 year is not a good sample size for server
> >> reliability. Now come back when you've had your cluster up and running
> >> for 5 years.
> >> 3. The most damaging of all: it takes a cluster of 1000's of machines to
> >> get 5 9's??!!!
> >
> >I don't know who would set up a cluster of 1000's of boxes for anything
> >other than calculating distances in space or something.
> >
>
> Well I guess this tells us how little you know then.
Oh right, I forgot how wordly and scholarly you are.
Sure, you could probably find thousands of low-end boxes an achieve some
type of super-computer status, but I meant a real corporation with
a problem to solve is rather unlikely to say, "Ok, the first thing we need
is to buy 3250 computers".
Likewise, in response to the comment above that somehow Win2K requires
you to have thousands of boxes to compete with Unix, I was making the
point that that is completely false. Win2K does far more on far less
hardware than Unix as demonstrated at www.tpc.org.
> >Win2K can do in a fraction what an IBM or Sun big-iron box can do, and
> >for a fraction of the cost:
> >
>
> Are you a comedian?
If by telling facts that makes me funny, than yes, I guess I am.
You can read the facts for yourself at www.tpc.org, but then you
have that problem about facts burning your eyes out, right?
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ForEnglishPress2)
Date: 28 Apr 2001 02:13:31 GMT
Subject: Cow Seeds! (Humor) Way OT
http://www.cowseeds.sphosting.com
lol check this out
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Rocks!
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 02:18:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:07:18 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Henry_Barta wrote:
>>
>> Hullo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > It's great.
>>
>> Yes! I actually got 15 days+ of uptime on my Win2K box.
>>
>
>whoop de fucking do
[snip for brevity]
>REAL operating system get 180 day uptimes without blinking.
Even on dodgy old hardware (P90, 16MB, something in there was
a little flaky).
Regrettably, I no longer have documentation -- the volume got
damaged in the latest crash (not the disk, just the volume) and
my attempts to repair it resulting in losing /bin and /etc and
who knows what else. No biggie -- I'll wait until I can get
something better for cheap.
:-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 11d:03h:13m actually running Linux.
The Internet routes around censorship.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 02:03:45 GMT
"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:T78G6.2727$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu 26 Apr 2001 10:36, Chad Myers wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >>
> >> Hmm, sounds familiar, I wonder who else fits that description... ISTR
> >> there was this one chap claiming that SSH was horribly insecure because
> >> of a few
> >> minor imperfections in the protocol. Hmm, now who was that?
> >
> > Heh, grasping at straws again.
> >
> > I maintained that I was not an expert, nor claimed to be. I was merely
> > raising questions about what EXPERTS and people who had ORIGINALLY worked
> > on the product said about it's problems.
> >
> > How you mistook that for pretense I'll never figure out...
> >
>
> Not experts, expert. One guy.
Who was speaking for a group of developers working on said product.
> And he had a financial stake in getting
> people to upgrade, because SSH1 is open source but SSH2 costs money.
Upgrade? All he was suggesting was that OpenSSH remove the SSH1 capability
from their product and use the already-implemented SSH2 capability.
There was no upgrade or money involved. He was making the obvious point
that SSH2 is there for a reason, and it's irresponsible that OpenSSH continues
to distribute the "flawed" SSH1 protocol.
>
> > Whereas this guy was all
> > lofty-high-and-mighty-big-bad-200-years-of-Unix-experience.
> >
> > If you look up pretense in the dictionary, there's a picture of this guy's
> > ass.
> >
> >
>
> The question was valid. How can one claim, with any sort of statistical
> reliability, that something offers 5 9's reliability unless it has been
> tested long enough?
Well, the way you put it it sounds perfectly reasonable, however, the way
he put it, unless it's been deployed for 5 years, it's not reliable
which is simply rediculous. There are implementations of Win2K on some
of most heavily-hit eCommerce sites which have never seen any downtime
(Dell to name just one). If this isn't sufficient, then you're just not
open to reason (as was the case above with the other individual).
> This isn't like physics, where you can say "Well, this
> room of 12 Win2K servers have all been running without a hitch for a month
> now, so obviously Win2K can stay up for a year."
But there are many hundreds of servers that have been running for over a year
now, if not close to two. Some of them may not even be running the release
version of Win2K since Beta3 was so stable.
>
> [Snip]
> >> I would hardly trust production systems to beta software from a company
> >> with Microsoft's track record on stability, but to each their own I
> >> suppose.
> >
> [Snip boasting of those products that actually have a decent track record]
> > Microsoft's trackrecord for stability is top notch.
> >
> > Perhaps you're referring to back in the NT 3.51 and 4.0 days 6 or more
> > years ago.
> >
>
> I was referring to Microsoft in general. From an outsider's perspective,
> it would seem that the only time they bother throwing good programmers at a
> software project is when it can buy them good PR or when it will rake in
> obscenely huge amounts of cash, and that the majority of MS's army of
> programmers is rather mediocre.
Well, perhaps that was the case in the past, but it's certainly not the
case now. SQL Server 7, Exchange 2000, SQL Server 2000, Windows 2000 and
even Windows XP are amazing products. They're rock solid, they break
benchmark records, and set the standard for functionality in their respective
markets. If you can't see this, then you truly have your head in the sand.
> > Where was Linux at 6 years ago? Hardly an enterprise high-availability
> > server. You have no leg to stand on, let along speak from in this
> > department.
> >
>
> Ooh, the Great Chad Has Spoken.
Yet more facts burn your eyes...
>
> [Snip]
> >>
> >> This paragraph had me LOLing in real life for a good 30 seconds. Chad,
> >> you certainly know how to perk up my day. Oh, what's that, you're
> >> SERIOUS? Excuse me...
> >
> > Just the facts. If you have a hard time swallowing the glaring obvious,
> > then you should consult a physician. The truth is, the only time Linux is
> > used in any type of enterprise-level capacity is when it's in some type of
> > rediculously
> > large cluster of hundreds of boxes.
> >
>
> I never said it was a wise thing to put Linux on a large server (especially
> due to the scalability and performance issues), I just made the claim that
> it could be done without Linux crashing, locking up, or otherwise failing.
However, no one has ever really done this, and the few trials that have been
attempted have failed miserably due to rather childish failings in the kernel.
So far, I've yet to see any validation of Linux in any enterprise application
arena, so I would assume that there have been trials and failures. I'm sure
it's not from a lack of testing. Red Hat has something to prove and I'm sure
that they're not just sitting there hoping someone else tests Linux in the
enterprise for them.
How come we don't see Linux on the TPC? How come we don't see many Seibel,
Baan, SAP, or <enterprise app here> deployments on Linux, or at least with
Linux on the back end doing the database serving?
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dylan Thurston)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman
Date: 28 Apr 2001 02:22:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>Sun is going to ship GNOME linked to thir proprietary libc.
>The exception allowing linking to libc is only valid if the library
>is not shipped along the GPLd binary.
>From the GPL, clause 3:
... However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
Thus there is a special exemption to allow linking with proprietary
libcs. (Whether or not its necessary has been the subject of extensive
flame wars, which I'd rather not touch off.)
Note the Sun already distributes, e.g., bash and gcc with Solaris.
--Dylan Thurston
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Rocks!
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 02:33:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hullo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 22 Apr 2001 01:29:26 +0100
<9bt8mp$8o2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It just rocks! What's wrong GNU boy? Scared?
You could be a little more forthcoming with some of the
specific features you like about your favorite OS. :-)
Like, for example, the Start button (yes, it's still used to shut
down and log out), the task bar, the way scrolling
consoles totally lock up everything else and can't be iconified until
they stop scrolling (you'd think they'd fix that), the quaint notion
of moving and slowly appearing and disappearing menus (which does
absolutely nothing for their usefulness; they just look pretty), the
nicely gradated title bars going from dark blue to the left to
light blue on the right if active, and light gray to lighter gray
if not (whoop-te-doo; KDE can do that, too, and Gnome can do
some even more interesting stuff! Besides, it's more gewgawery
anyway, although it looks nice), the reorganization of the file system
(C:\Documents And Settings instead of C:\WinNT\Profiles),
the beautifully broken Notepad which now uses open boxes rather
than closed black boxes for Unix files (it must have CR/LF;
Unix only gives it LF), and the usual bizarre crap regarding
internals.
But yes, they did fix something -- Kill is a lot faster now.
Why, I don't rightly know. And they redesigned the icons
and now if one moves a group of icons many of them are fogged out,
if one sees them at all (one wonders if the designers came
from San Francisco and got the idea from watching a bridge).
Whoopee.
And they STILL HAVEN'T FIXED THE [censored] SCROLLBARS!
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random cheer/rant here
EAC code #191 11d:05h:06m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Rocks!
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 02:35:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Michael Vester
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 22 Apr 2001 01:02:48 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>>
>> Edward Rosten wrote:
>> >
>> > > Give me a 15,000 word essay on why Windows 2000 is superior to
>> > > Linux/UNIX, from the top down, from the user interface right down
>> > > to the nitty gritty details of the OS. Also, use a valid email
>> > > address to back up your post. I have the balls to use my real
>> > > email address, do you?
>> >
>> > And you have to write the essay in Word too.
>> >
>> > -Ed
>> Nope, they have to use vi.
>>
>
>No, he should use edlin. That line editor really rocks.
It's still available? Oy vey.
I mean, if I really wanted to flagellate myself, I'd use TECO... :-)
But at least TECO works.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and I use VI on a daily basis anyway
EAC code #191 11d:05h:10m actually running Linux.
We were born naked, but we don't usually die naked. Why?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Windows is a virus
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 02:42:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:40:16 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>>
>> Andy Walker wrote:
>>
>> > What is the technical term to describe a virus?
[snip for brevity: Windows=virus]
>> Windows isn't a virus. A virus is small, compact,
>>fast, efficient and does
>
>No...that's not part of the definition. In fact some viruses
>are specifically designed to GROW without bounds and/or be inefficient.
>
>> the job it was orignally written for. Windows is the complete opposite!
>
>Windows does the job it was designed for: Corrupt user's data, and
>keep the dimwitted moron's expectations so low that they are easily
>impressed by a whole 36 hours of continous uptime.
Actualy, I for one would think that Windows does a delightful job of
making money for Bill & Company; the data corruption is merely a lovely
afterthought ("Corrupt data? Why not try Norton Utilities, or
the WindowsDefragmentationThingy! [*] Or wait for Microsoft to fix it
next release...") which gives myriad aftermarket possibilities for
bodges, hacks, and shims...
:-)
[.sigsnip]
[*] this actually appears to be be from ExecSoft, if I'm not mistaken.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 11d:06h:25m actually running Linux.
I am, you are, he, she, and it is, but they're not.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 28 Apr 2001 02:40:20 GMT
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:24:38 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> Problem #1 no network neighbourhood icon. Although I set up Samba easily
>> on my Linux box, her pc lacked the above NN facility. Could I restore it
>> ... nope. Tweakui fails to work, Windows help is non existant. I have no
>> interest in buying 'secrets of the windows registry' so I can manipulate a
>> terse, binary database, that will render her machine unusable should I
>> screw up the editing.
>
> I have a SAMBA server at work and Windows PC's that connect to it. It
> wasn't hard to make Windows see the Samba server - once you modify LMHOSTS
> and point the names at the SAMBA box.
Eeks no thanks, no registry editing on her pc for me.
>
>> Problem #2 No decent FTP facility on her machine, so I installed a time
>> limited Windows FTP 'shareware' programe, good for 10 days!
>> Using that ftp application I easily uploaded all her files to my Linux FTP
>> server, and then burnt all 250 megabytes onto a CD.
>
> There's a command line ftp in Windows that works just fine.
I know its there, but transferring hundreds of files this way is just too hard.
> There's no FTP
> server though. There used to be one in various older incarnations of
> Personal Web server. For some reason, Microsoft has removed it.
Thats cool, I only needed to upload to my Linux box, for cdrom burning.
I dont expect to find a FTP server on the Win98CD, Microsoft isnt Linux !
>
>> Windows98 GUI - 22 to choose from, probably IceWm
>
> Hmmm... not of them, not even KDE or GNOME are as functional as Windows GUI.
Your description of functional, is different to mine. Windows lacks remote
GUI, to me this makes it totally unusable, not to mention disfunctional.
>
>> Windows filemgr - XWinCommander
>
> If konqueror is an example of file manager's it's nothing to write home
> about.
Um.. I dont use KDE Pete, you know that. Where did I mention konqueror ??
>
>> Word - Lyx, Ted, Abiword
>
> Word is way ahead compared to Lyx or AbiWord (which was alpha-test last
> time I looked). However it depends what you want to do, doesn't it? Word
> seems to start creaking when you get beyond the simple stuff.
For her writing, all she needs is LYX, she actually detests Ms Word.
>
>> mIRC - Xchat
>
> There's nothing Microsoft Comic Chat is there?
Yeah there are all manner of irc clients for Linux, 3D, whatever you want.
Wether theyre compatiblewith comic chat, I dont know.
>
>> Outhouse - Exmh
>
> Never heard of Outhouse.
Sorry I meant Outlook;-)
>
>> ICQ - Licq
>
> ICQ on Windows is far, far better than LICQ.
How?
>
>> Winamp - Winamp,Xmms
>
> Winamp, MusicMatch and whole army of players on Windows.
Yep as I stated above. Mind you, are they shareware etc ?
>
>> nothing - Gftp
>
> 8). How about 'ftp' or did you miss that on Windows?
No, I even tried it, but its too lacking to be usefull, as far as I can tell.
How do I easily upload nested directories and files with it ?
>
>> nothing - Gimp
>
> Paint Shop Pro.
How much does that cost?
>
>> nothing - Wordnet
>
> What's wordnet?
"
WordNet® is an on-line lexical reference system whose design is inspired by
current psycholinguistic theories of human lexical memory. English nouns,
verbs, adjectives and adverbs are organized into synonym sets, each
representing one underlying lexical concept. Different relations link the
synonym sets."
>> nothing - Gcc for compiling new apps etc
>
> What's a writer using a compiler for?
Pete, this really does show that you still don't grasp many of the Linux ways
of doing things (tm) ;-)
The compiler is for me to use, when I remotely add apps to her pc, as she
decides she wants them.
Example: She is chatting on IRCwhen one of her friends suggests that she should
use a certain program.
She asks me to find one for her from her desk (we sit opposite each other in
the study). I logon to her box, and start Mozilla, a Mozilla Browser pops up on
my screen, but its running on her box.
Now I find what she wants in source form, and d/l it. Once d/l I compile it
using her Gcc and add it to her user menu, allwhile she continues to work
on her pc, no reboots neccessary :)
>
>> Another handy feature will be the Remote GUI,that Linux has, and on our
>> in house network, it means she can run apps from my box, even if her pc
>> has different libaries etc, and the app runs as tho its on her pc!
>
> One advantage.
And used in my explanation to you above.
>
> --
> Pete
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 05:51:05 +0200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5ypG6.177121$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > This isn't like physics, where you can say "Well, this
> > room of 12 Win2K servers have all been running without a hitch for a
month
> > now, so obviously Win2K can stay up for a year."
>
> But there are many hundreds of servers that have been running for over a
year
> now, if not close to two. Some of them may not even be running the release
> version of Win2K since Beta3 was so stable.
Doesn't B3 stop working after 180 days? And IIRC, the TOS said that it can't
be used after the RTM, anyway.
> How come we don't see Linux on the TPC? How come we don't see many Seibel,
> Baan, SAP, or <enterprise app here> deployments on Linux, or at least with
> Linux on the back end doing the database serving?
Well, there is Oracle for Linux, you can't get much more enterprise than
that, unless you want to get into the non-stop machines, (oracle is there,
too, isn't it?).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
