Linux-Advocacy Digest #420, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (mlw)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Matthew Gardiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 08:42:55 -0400
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > [snipped]
> >
> > Actually, it really good to see that stuff. I'll tell you why. RedHat 6.2
> does
> > not have the 2.4 kernel, it has 2.2. Some major SMP performance
> improvements
> > were done in 2.4.
>
> Tux2 requires kernel 2.4 so ...
I stand corrected, it was on 2.4.
>
> >
> > So, if the best and newest that Microsoft can produce, Win2000 Datacenter
> and
> > IIS 5, is only 16% faster than a pervious distro version, and the older
> 2.2
> > linux kernel without SMP improvements, that's cool. That means the 2.4
> kernel
> > will kick its' butt with no problems.
>
> 2.4 just had it's ass kicked, I'm amused.
Hardly, 6% is pretty much nothing. However.....
If one looks at the specifics of the tests, there are some interesting numbers.
Linux had lower connection response time and a higher kps for data.
6% difference, at these performance levels, can be anything and is not even
relevant. Not to mention we have different disk subsystem configurations. That
15K RPM disk? What did it do? Presumably it was the system disk. It could have
been the disk to which the logs get written, which would have an impact on
performance.
>
> >
> > So, Pay for MS Win2000 Datacenter, or get a Linux 2.4 distro for free.
> Hmm,
> > which should I choose?
>
> the one that works best in your own given situation, of course.
Let's think about that, $thousands for W2K, $0 for Linux. Um, Um, someone help
me, here.
>
> >
> > Then there is "uptime" lol. What's the MTTF for Win2000? I keep
> forgetting,
> > something like 180 days? So pay lots of money, get an operating system
> that is
> > at best unreliable, or get equivalent performance and high reliability
> with
> > Linux and/or FreeBSD for free.
>
> Given that SP1 was released only about 180 days ago I'd say 100% uptime is a
> pretty good figure. That's what I'm typically seeing, 100%. I boot up, then
> it stays up, until I need to turn it if, if I choose to.
So you say, but I want to see proof. An OS isn't stable until proven unstable,
it is unstable until proven stable. Any other point of view is reckless.
>
> I love how when arguments against performance fail, it's that old turning to
> 'uptime' jazz is next.
"uptime" is VERY important. It is an indication of stability and
predictability. "uptime" is FAR FAR more important that marginal performance
gains. I would settle for something 10% - 20% slower if it were more reliable
than something faster and less reliable.
Which would you buy for daily use: A fast car that experiences frequent
failures, or a slower car that needs no maintenance?
> Too bad the linvocates who don't even bother trying
> the stuff they dis haven't figured out what everyone else knows already. W2K
> is perfectly reliable.
OK, prove it. Provide some independent information that backs that claim up.
> It is as stable as any other OS out there.
If you mean Windows NT 4.0, maybe, if you mean the likes of Linux, FreeBSD,
Solaris, etc. Get a clue.
> Besides,
> you simply cannot purchase a datacenter system that doesn't have a 5 9s
> uptime guarentee. That's how it works. Deal with it...
Deal with what?
>
> >
> > > Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
> >
> > Yes, lots. The rumbling sound you hear isn't W2K rocking the house, it is
> the
> > sound of fast SCSI hard disk writing W2K's memory dump to disk after the
> BSOD.
>
> Ha! that's funny - but just confirms to me what I've already guessed. You've
> never used W2K.
lol, you don't believe that do you?
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:40:22 +1200
> Correction: the marketplace is *supposed* to be driven by the demands of
> the consumer. Which is, of course, why, a hundred years ago, the U.S.
> Congress passed the Sherman Act, to ensure that this is all that would
> drive demand, and the desires of the producers (outside desire to
> compete and profit) are prevented from controlling prices or excluding
> competition.
>
> Having been found guilty of doing just this thing, and thereby providing
> more than adequate evidence that your claim that MS will magically learn
> to be competitive, and stop being anti-competitive, if people simply
> refuse to buy MS products, is just plain brain-dead. The market has
> been rejecting monopoly crapware for YEARS, and it hasn't done a lick of
> good, obviously. Thus, the federal conviction, soon to be judged on
> appeal.
>
> Even if they should "win the appeal" (at most resulting in a new trial),
> though, pretending that MS hasn't been monopolizing, rather than
> competing, for years, is just ignorance gone blind. The judges and
> lawyers need to maintain prudent presumption of innocence, but that is
> for courtrooms. In the real world, we are not required to deny the
> evidence of our senses.
>
> There is a rather critical difference between your fantasy world and the
> real world; the difference between being unwilling and being unable. I
> don't cotton to any ludicrous second-guessing about what people "should"
> be able to do that they are not already able to do. If you're going to
> say they "should" be able to avoid MS crapware, then I'd have to agree
> with you, but that's just double-checking that the criminal monopoly is
> remedied, not a matter of assuming the consumers are somehow unable to
> make competent choices in the marketplace.
>
> The arrogance of your position is both astounding and pathetic, and
> extremely unreasonable.
Question, why is it everytime a company is bought towards the DOJ, its
always the governments fault, reality stick please! why would a
government wish to unnecessarily ruin a cash cow? Microsoft broke the
law, had they gracefully accepted the findings, the trial would never
taken as long, it would have improved the image of the company, in that
it is humble enough to accept they made a mistake, and even at the
outermost, the company was split up, no would lose out, consumers would
benefit in that the OS company would only sell the OS, thus the rest of
Microsoft cannot use Windows as a leverage, and vise-versa
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 03:41:06 +0200
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> > 2.4 just had it's ass kicked, I'm amused.
> Hardly, 6% is pretty much nothing. However.....
That wasn't what was said when it was Linux over Win2K by 2.7%
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 03:42:17 +0200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > [snipped]
> >
> > Actually, it really good to see that stuff. I'll tell you why. RedHat
6.2 does
> > not have the 2.4 kernel, it has 2.2. Some major SMP performance
improvements
> > were done in 2.4.
>
> True, there were a number of bench marks 2.2 vs. 2.4 to prove that. It
> would be nice to see UNISYS help get Linux to scale up to 32 CPU's and
> give MS Datacentre a run for it's money.
>
> >
> > So, if the best and newest that Microsoft can produce, Win2000
Datacenter and
> > IIS 5, is only 16% faster than a pervious distro version, and the older
2.2
> > linux kernel without SMP improvements, that's cool. That means the 2.4
kernel
> > will kick its' butt with no problems.
> >
> > So, Pay for MS Win2000 Datacenter, or get a Linux 2.4 distro for free.
Hmm,
> > which should I choose?
>
> You want Datacentre? sorry, can't buy it retail, you have to buy a new
> server, configured to Microsoft's specifications, and hardware
> "approved" by Microsoft. So far Compaq and a few others have made the
> tragic leap into the Microsoft DC camp. Compaq has an awesome processor
> they obtained from Digital when they purchased it a couple of years
> ago. What I would like to see is a 128 Alpha CPU based datacentre
> running Digital UNIX and Oracle, that would give Microsoft a serious run
> for their money. The problem is that Compaq can't market to save
> themselves, and hides Alpha based machines at the back of there website
> as if they are ashamed that they have beaten Microsoft.
Strangely, CompaQ killed Win2K on Alpha, any idea why they did it?
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:44:38 +1200
*me is reaching for a very large reality stick to beat the living crap
out of Jan with*
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20001225-00092.html
A IBM IBM eServer pSeries 680 running AIX, and using Zeus 3.3.7 as the
server software. It reached a remarkable score of 8344, using 12 Power3
CPU's. That doesn't include the benefits of the low power requirements
of the PowerPC processor.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:46:34 +1200
> Can't speak of uptime, because it's usually to expensive (and long) to
> benchmark those.
> But according to TCP.ORG, in the unclustered category, Win2K win on
> price/performance.
> On unclustered/clustered category, Win2K wins *both* price/performance &
> performance.
Support is more expensive on UNIX boxes, however, that is off set my the
reduced amount of downtime, hence the reason why the New Zealand
financial system runs on big irons.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 12:46:47 GMT
On Fri, 11 May 2001 00:43:27 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Pete is expressing the frustrations of many professionals that have to
>put up with bugs that never get fixed, or promised to get fixed. No O/S
>is immune to bugs. However, Linux is the fastest to react to criticisms
>of bugs and get them fixed. I welcome Petes bug reports to the Linux
>community.... only that Pete should say that he reports these bugs to
>the appropriate group that can fix them.
This is really true but what is even more frustrating is what I call
"the abandonment factor".
As an example I offer MIDI interfaces. Most professional's use at
least an 8x8 interface with SMPTE and other locking options and so
forth. Typically these connect via the parallel port of the computer.
Well Win2k, which is what XP is built on, doesn't like using these
types of devices so USB MIDI devices came into vogue. Unfortunately
there are some serious performance issues with USB and DAW so that's a
real crap shoot. So now they are talking Firewire instead...So now
those of us with $400+ MIDI interfaces are screwed into buying new
ones just to keep up. Of course we could stay with Win98SE and things
will be fine except...........
the current high end audio boards prefer to use WDM drivers instead of
MME types and Win98se is less than stable with the WDM drivers. Some
work, some don't but the bottom line is manufacturers are writing for
Win2k and XP.
Another example:
Event electronics Layla card was originally a 20 bit card. Later they
released a 24 bit card. Finally they are releasing WDM drivers, but
only for the 24 bit version. They have been coy as to whether or not
the 20 bit folks will ever see WDM drivers.
That's really wonderful. A $1000 card that can't be used anymore.
While one can always stick with what works meaning staying with
Win98SE, the problem arises with all of the other programs that are
getting upgrades and so forth and depend upon the hardware drivers
etc. It is a frustrating, vicious and very expensive cycle that never
ends.
Add into this all of the bugs that get introduced with all of these
changes and it becomes a real nightmare.
THIS is what is pissing us in the audio/music field off and THIS is
why Linux comes up as a topic in discussions over and over again. We
are tired of shelling out $500.00 for a piece of software/hardware
only to find it gets orphaned 2 years later with no hope of upgrading.
We are sick of MS changing the standards over and over again and
putting us behind a financial 8-ball and that is the truth.
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:47:44 +1200
> > You want Datacentre? sorry, can't buy it retail, you have to buy a new
> > server, configured to Microsoft's specifications, and hardware
> > "approved" by Microsoft. So far Compaq and a few others have made the
> > tragic leap into the Microsoft DC camp. Compaq has an awesome processor
> > they obtained from Digital when they purchased it a couple of years
> > ago. What I would like to see is a 128 Alpha CPU based datacentre
> > running Digital UNIX and Oracle, that would give Microsoft a serious run
> > for their money. The problem is that Compaq can't market to save
> > themselves, and hides Alpha based machines at the back of there website
> > as if they are ashamed that they have beaten Microsoft.
>
> Strangely, CompaQ killed Win2K on Alpha, any idea why they did it?
Too much forking around I guess. Or the fact that most people who demand
Alpha machines are scientists who use UNIX.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 22:59:02 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
I like the bit down the bottom of the article:
To advocates of the open-source approach, this looks very much
like one-way sharing. Customers can look at the source code of
Windows, tell Microsoft about bugs and suggest improvements,
thus saving the firm a lot of money—but they still have to pay for
the next version.
How very true.
Chris
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> http://economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=620445
>
> Quite an interesting discussion on the Microsoft FUD campaign.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:50:50 +1200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Why do you assume that anyone (even me, who cares not for Microsoft
> > tactics) announced this as purely MS disrespect? I myself posted it
> > to illustrate that UNIX is not immune to hacking.
>
> Did anyone ever said it was?
Nope. People have said it was more stable, and secure, however, no one
ever said it was security bullet proof, nothing is, because software is
complex, and for ever patch that is released, there will be atleast 4
workarounds.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:55:39 +1200
Chris Sherlock wrote:
>
> I like the bit down the bottom of the article:
>
> To advocates of the open-source approach, this looks very much
> like one-way sharing. Customers can look at the source code of
> Windows, tell Microsoft about bugs and suggest improvements,
> thus saving the firm a lot of money-but they still have to pay for
> the next version.
>
> How very true.
>
> Chris
When has Microsoft ever included some of my recomendations? or am I one
of Microsoft's droans? I subscribe to the Linux kernel mailing list, and
at least the development process is as transparent as possible. How do I
know Microsoft isn't holding back some bug fixes because they want to
sell more of their next product? at least when I get an error, I email
the mailing list, developers receive the information, and the problem is
isolated and solved, unlike the Microsoft way which requires you to have
a huge wobb of cash just to get them to listen to you.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:57:30 +1200
Dave Martel wrote:
> =
> On Wed, 09 May 2001 15:07:17 GMT, "~=BF~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:=
> =
> >Corel 5, I'm not sure as I've never used it. I can't imagine it using =
more
> >than 100mb's.
> =
> You're not taking into account the inefficiences of the FAT
> filesystem.
850MB, works out to be around 8KB size clusters, add a whole heep of 1K
pics, icons etc etc, and the space fills up quickly. I am running
ResierFS, and face non of those problems because it handles files
efficiently, something Microsoft still hasn't understood yet.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 12:58:21 GMT
On Fri, 11 May 2001 02:55:23 +0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob H wrote:
>
>> Gotta agree. My dad at age 75 took up computing last summer, using Win98.
>> He's getting pretty darn good at it too. But if he had to look at a
>> command
>> prompt (boy do I like helping people at work by using a Dos box-the looks of
>> fear are astounding), he would have dropped it right away. Much less a
>> Linux
>> command prompt.
>
>Interesting. I'm running Linux, and there's not a command prompt visible
>anywhere on my screen.
>
>More interesting yet, I'm using -- are you sitting down? -- a keyboard to type
>this message.
>
>I'll bet you sophisto Windows users use the mouse and pull down a menu to tell
>the compter which character goes in your message next, or at least have a
>completion utility that lets you just type in the first word of your post and
>then automatically guesses the rest of it for you, but I'm content with that
>oldfangled keyboard thingy for that kind of thing.
>
>I find it useful for various other things too, when I'm not in the mood to
>click around 8-10 times just to do something easy. So though I don't happen to
>have a command line visible right now, I know how to get one faster than you
>can say 'registry'.
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
My father, also 75, started back in the 1980's building clones and
editing Qemm files to squeak an extra byte or two out of high memory.
He was always fascinated by Norton Speed disk moving the blocks around
on the screen :)
He hates gui's and Windows in particular.
In fact he is still using an old version of the Shareware program
PCFile for his American Legion membership list.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 12:58:25 +0000 (UTC)
Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
:>and for the Linux users to buy sufficient quantities of games to
:>make it a viable platform
:>for developers to spend their time and energy on. But that's the
:>subject for another thread...
: It's hardly an invitation to buy a Linux game after looking at the
: ''games'' (I use that term loosely, imprecisely) shipped with the
: average distro. A complete turn-off.
That's quite irrelevent. Windows ships with even worse "games" than
the average Linux distribution. Gaming consoles ship with little
more than a demo disc (if you're lucky). But people still use both
heavily for gaming, obviously.
The problem is an economic one. If enough people demanded games
from Linux (with cash for compensation), game developers would
make them and Linux developers would work to make the process
easier for both groups. Unfortunately, without a lot of games
being sold, Linux users don't have many to buy. And because
Linux users aren't buying a lot of games, game developers are
unsure if there is a market for them. (And free games, by virtue
of not being sold, can't indicite whether or not there is a
market for commercial games, either)
It's a sticky situation without an easy solution. But I can
guarantee that any free games shipped with Linux distributions
aren't part of the problem.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:25 +1200
mlw wrote:
>
> Dave Martel wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 09 May 2001 08:20:52 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >What's not to love.
> >
> > That silly penguin logo. :-(
>
> I am so sick of beige and corporate logos, a silly penguin is a refreshing
> change.
Ive got 3 stuffed toys on my desk, two Linux ones, and the Java Duke
dude, just to remind me to have a sense of humour (something Jan has
lost) and that there are other ideas and solutions out there, thus keep
an open mind.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:08:24 +1200
> I have to agree on this ... the average consumer does not know about
> linux.
> The average consumer does not know about VM.
> The average consumer does not know about VMS.
> The average consumer does not know about Sun OS or other UNIX variants.
> When the average consumer goes into the usual store, like Wal-mart, they
> see MicroSoft oriented equipment.
> The average consumer is not made aware of alternatives.
>
> --
> V
The average person is a complete moron also, one only needs to look at
the number of people who like to what programmes like "when stunts go
bad" as a respresentation of moroness in the community.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
