Linux-Advocacy Digest #471, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 07:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Roy Culley)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Roy Culley)
Re: Linux in college & high school (Roy Culley)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:12:11 +0100
In article <3afdda58$0$82830$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> There is a guarantee by IBM of 35 years of no hardware failures on
>> their mainframe line.
>
> I'd like to see this - show me the guarantee.
>
> Then show me the complete MORON that would run the same computer
> hardware without a single second of upgrade downtime for 35 years...
Look MORON, there are stories of S/390's which have been up for over 8
years and do not have a single bit or origional hardware except the case.
If you use PROPER hardware with a PROPER operating system, you can
upgrade without downtime.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 09:17:46 GMT
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Tell that to Cygnus. I spent $150 for GNU Pro Tool kit and very little
> > > was mentioned of the GPL. No source, just a copyright notice.
> > If Cygnus is breaking the GPL, I suggest you talk to FSF and RMS - he
> > might want to sue them, at least he has indicated so in the past. It
> > would be very interesting to get a legal affirmation/denial of the
> > validity of the GPL.
> That's what I was always waiting to see. So far I haven't seen any
> lawsuits over the GPL that I'm aware of.
You won't see it if all you do is *wait*. How do you expect the
copyright holders (FSF) to take action if you don't inform them about
Cygnus' breach?
Did you drop a mail to rms yet?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:20:45 +0100
> You know, I was using Solaris 2.7 and bash just yesterday and I resized
> the window and nothing seemed to be affected. I was using vi and it
> didn't detect the resize.
The idea of you using vi on solaris is plain funny. Thas said, the vi on
solaris is so old that you have to be in command mode for it to realize
its been resized. Linux always ships with much bewer versons that work
properly.
> Perhaps some apps detect resizing, but most don't. Please remind me how
> this is better than Windows again?
Under my Linux distro, all my console apps that I use on a regular basis
detect resizing (I can't comment about the rest since I don't use them,
so I can't know).
>> I know that MS puts "features" into their products that do not actually
>> work.
>
> So must Sun then.
So they must, indeed.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:16:46 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Professional politicians these days generally can't actually argue their
> way out of a paper bag, it seems to me. I mean; look at the quotes JS
> PL keeps posting. Granted, it is more trying to confront a troll than
> an old quote, but bullshit is bullshit; it doesn't really matter how
> it's packaged.
As far as I have seen, Dan Quale was one of the best...
"We are seeing an irrevocable trend towards more freedom and democracy, but
that could change"
or perhaps
"It's not pollution that's destroying our environment. It's impurities in
the air and water that do it"...
What a dickhead...
MP
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:55:44 +0100
>> really? what kind of windows was it? xterm, dtterm....this seems to
>> work just fine on my solaris 8 machine and my bash shell at work. I
>> don't believe you.
>
> Heh. Solaris 2.7 3/99 fresh install. Downloaded GZip and Bash
>
> I'm using CDE (not OpenWindows). Open a new console window. Open man for
> example, or vi, or anything really. Resize window. It won't update.
Make sure you're in command mode. Or download vim. It is rather better.
>> Well, you're wrong again in this case.
>
> If you tell me how to make screenshots in Solaris, I'll send you
> screenshots.
xwd or xv should do the trick.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:57:50 +0100
In article <3afddc0c$0$82796$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dis52$bia$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Bragging? HARDLY! Stating that, yes, indeed, there is a lame ass
>> > telnet server in W2K - sure. But who in their right mind would still
>> > use telnet when so much better is available?
>>
>> Like SSH on Linux...
>
> or SSH on windows - but, again, why?
Does Win2K come with an ssh server?
Why, coz the command line is superior for some things.
How would you find all text fiels on your system using a GUI program.
Here's how to do it in the CLI:
fine / -print0 | xargs -0 -n1 | grep text
How do you do it using a GUI?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 12:02:49 +0100
>> Really? You have a GUI that can provide all the functionality of Unix
>> commands and pipes? Where is this magical GUI?
>
> Clipboard?
It doesn't provide the functionality as you pointed out later...
> Piping text around isn't something you do very often in the GUI. You do
> this because that's the way CLIs are designed.
>
> I don't see many command-line flow-charts, 3D design, or
> contact/calendar management apps either.
>
> Each has their place.
Exactly, that's the point I've been trying to make to Jan. Command lines
aren't much good for visual design etc, and CLIs tend to be better for
things like bulk data manipulation etc.
GUIs also provide a convinient way to arrange xterms :-)
Each has its place, and I don't like systems missing either one very much
(though with what I do, I miss the GUI a little less, but YMMV).
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 12:12:17 +0100
>> I meant crosslinking within a filesystem.
>
> Sure they are possible. But you would've to sacrifise DOS compatability,
> and possibly also result in scandisk ruining your data if you try to
> that on FAT. Not to mention that FAT isn't much of a file system in the
> first place. IIRC, it required a hack to support *directories*.
That's true, it would wreck scandisk. But it was possibel to get in cross
linking without breaking anything else. One friend of mine got a hacky
tool for making cross links so he put his c drive (properly) in the start
menu. To mee it always seemes rather silly to be able to navigate the
entire omputer from there, but the liked it.
>> >>Also, if they put the code at a much lower level, ie belop
>> >> the API layer, then the soft links would work transparently.
>> >
>> > But would you be able to use that from DOS? *Old* DOS? That was a
>> > major thing that they had to remember, anything that they did had to
>> > be usable from DOS as well. See how they managed to fit > 8.3 file
>> > names, for an example of being tied up by backward compatability.
>>
>> Yep. but, why couldn't they make .lnk files normal files (ie, they look
>> like lnk files to DOS apps), but to Win95 apps, they are transparent
>> links.
>
> *That* would be a *lot* of work to do.
> Consider that lnk are more then just pointers to another locations, they
> also contain working directory, icon, window startup mode, etc. In 2000,
> they contain runas information, in XP, they contain compatability mode
> and sandbox.
I forgot about that extra information contained in them.
> The only way I can think of implementing it would be if the applications
> use ReadFile() / WriteFile() APIs. I don't think that it's a good idea,
> stuffing *this* into so important APIs. Beside, that would lead to
> inconsist behaviour, as some application would use this API, and would
> get the right file, and some wouldn't because they would use fopen(), or
> the equilent in their programming language.
If you put it low enough, it will work, but therte are problems (as you
pointed out).
> Hardlinks & shortcuts have different purposes, and therefor, are
> implemented differently. Not that I don't think that this is a good
> idea, mind you. Just impractically difficult for the purpose that they
> had in mind, within the limits that they had.
fair enough.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:25:01 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Why did you address this to me? I've never said that.
>
> I haven't used Wordperfect since 6.1, so I have no clue what Wordperfect is
> like.
> Why ask me?
He probably assumes you're this big MS Office 2000 geek, since you seem
to advocate Windows so much. As such, the perception is that you hate
Word Perfect, a competitor of MS Office. Myself, I'm a LaTeX and XEmacs
geek, and I know you can run those software packages on Windows as
well. I run teTeX on FreeBSD, and I know there's a Cygwin port of it.
I'm almost sure there's a port of BSD's lpr/lpd for Windows. Being a
unix-geek, I desperately want as many nix tools on Windows as I can get
my hands on. I know that although I hate Windows, I will try to be
open-minded, and try to open up a little, because a lot of positions I
applied for have some Windows admin/programming involved (although
BSD|Linux|Solaris is the main platform for all of these).
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: 13 May 2001 19:25:29 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 11 May 2001 08:53:06 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>ELKS. Which version of DOS does?
>>
>>Bernie "And I got two of the damn things to check" Meyer
>IBMDOS 1.0
And which one would you rather use today?
Bernie
--
A faith is something you die for; A doctrine is something you kill for:
there is all the difference in the world
Tony Benn
British Labour politician, 1925-
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:36:39 +1200
David Kaczynski wrote:
>
> Jan who?
Oh, you haven't met everyone's favourite winadvocate?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:37:35 +1200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 May 2001 23:12:03 +1200, Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >and if that is so, why would someone pay up to $2K for Windows 2000,
> >which has a equal selling at only, what for it, free! yeap, from free
> >all the way up to $30 (for UNIXWare), why would someone pay more than
> >they need to? Apparently, by Jan's notion, people LOVE wasting money on
> >unneeded software, hence the reason why no one ever give it a second
> >thought.
>
> Yeah, but does linux have sixty million brand new lines of code?
>
> W2K is best for hardware purchases. You can get far superior kickbacks when you
> need 5 times the hardware for the same thruput.
>From what I have read, Linux has around 4-6Million lines of code, which
is about average for a UNIX like OS.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:41:03 +1200
> He probably assumes you're this big MS Office 2000 geek, since you seem
> to advocate Windows so much. As such, the perception is that you hate
> Word Perfect, a competitor of MS Office. Myself, I'm a LaTeX and XEmacs
> geek, and I know you can run those software packages on Windows as
> well. I run teTeX on FreeBSD, and I know there's a Cygwin port of it.
> I'm almost sure there's a port of BSD's lpr/lpd for Windows. Being a
> unix-geek, I desperately want as many nix tools on Windows as I can get
> my hands on. I know that although I hate Windows, I will try to be
> open-minded, and try to open up a little, because a lot of positions I
> applied for have some Windows admin/programming involved (although
> BSD|Linux|Solaris is the main platform for all of these).
>
He (Erik) is also the one who proclaims the fact that Linux has few
commercial apps, when what he is really saying is that since Microsoft
Office is not on it, it obviously sucks. Several people have also
questioned why StarOffice, or its sucessor, OpenOffice, can't be used as
a MSOffice substitute, yet he fails to elaborate on why this cannot be
done.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:44:29 +1200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sun has weekly bug fixes, big fixes, small fixes, they are all released,
> > regardless of whether these bug fixes are important, what is even
> > better, everyone can access these fixes at no extra cost. Maybe instead
> > of Microsoft releasing a service pack, they should release weekly bug
> > fixes for issues customers have addressed to Microsoft.
>
> I think MS's issue is that they prefer to have as few hot fixes in the field
> as possible, so that they have better control over support. When someone
> calls in, they can ask what SP is applied and have a good idea of the state
> of the machine. If you could apply hundreds of fixes then the current
> revision level of the customer is anyones guess. Also, some fixes will
> require that other, previous fixes be applied. The dependancy issues could
> be staggering if they simply put fixes up willy nilly.
In SUN's case, you tell them the serial number of the patches that you
have applied (which is the the installation log). These patches are
released, either as separate downloads, or as a large download. You
simply specify what version, in my case, Solaris Sparc 01/01, and
download the patches applicable to me.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:47:54 +1200
> Not to mention that MS has a legal liability as well, despite the fact that
> they disclaim liability, they are still subject to laws in certain places
> that do not allow them to disclaim it completely.
>
> They have to regression test each patch thoroughly before releasing it.
> With Linux, someone will hack a quick fix together and release it, not
> caring a bit about testing it. Then, as the developers have time, they
> create a decent fix, which happens in about the same timeframe that MS
> takes.
Bull shit, what you are saying is that pofit is the only motivation for
quality, well, if that is the case, Microsoft should be making the best
quality products, which they certainly are not. The kernel programmers
I have spoken to would never included an untested patch, and if it was
experiment, they would point it out as so. May be you should actually
take part in a kernel hacking project, then you will understand what I
mean.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:29:06 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <sShL6.647$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> They have to regression test each patch thoroughly before releasing it.
> With Linux, someone will hack a quick fix together and release it, not
> caring a bit about testing it. Then, as the developers have time, they
> create a decent fix, which happens in about the same timeframe that MS
> takes.
Then why are so many security bugs reported in bugtraq due to Microsoft
patches? Regression testing indeed. I would say that there are about
25% patches to previous patches reported by Microsoft on bugtraq.
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:25:29 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <nVhL6.648$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Sun has weekly bug fixes, big fixes, small fixes, they are all released,
>> regardless of whether these bug fixes are important, what is even
>> better, everyone can access these fixes at no extra cost. Maybe instead
>> of Microsoft releasing a service pack, they should release weekly bug
>> fixes for issues customers have addressed to Microsoft.
>
> I think MS's issue is that they prefer to have as few hot fixes in the field
> as possible, so that they have better control over support. When someone
> calls in, they can ask what SP is applied and have a good idea of the state
> of the machine. If you could apply hundreds of fixes then the current
> revision level of the customer is anyones guess. Also, some fixes will
> require that other, previous fixes be applied. The dependancy issues could
> be staggering if they simply put fixes up willy nilly.
Then how can Sun do it? All Sun patches tell you what other patches they
depend on, which ones it obsoletes, etc. When you contact Sun about a
problem you send then a list of which patches and versions are installed
on the system. It's a trivial command to do so. Once again you are
apologising for Microsoft's crap support.
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux in college & high school
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:55:03 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
>
> I will note for the record that a large number of the machines
> are running Debian 2.2, a few are running IRIX, and, of the
> more than 80 machines listed there, only 4 are known to run any
> variant of Windows (there are two unknowns). And one of them --
> versaka-vm -- is cheating by using VMWare. :-)
>
> This according to a quick scan of the article. Impressive, actually.
> I'm kinda curious as to the manpower required to install and maintain
> all this machinery, and how that manpower would compare to a
> similar-sized lab running pure NT/W2k equipment.
Well not more than 2 I would presume (to allow for holidays and
illness, etc). At the last company I worked for we administered
about 400 Sun WS and 8 Sun servers. At anytime there were only
2 administrators supporting this environment. There was a third
guy who administered the company's sybase servers. The environment
was telecoms application development. We could install a new
WS in less than 30 minutes. This from unpacking the system through
to setting up the network connection.
Most of the support was helping the developers with SunOS questions.
A funny example was when one engineer asked for help in grabbing
the output from a command run using system(). I asked her what it
was she was trying to do. She told me she wanted to run 'ls' to see
if a file existed or not! If it didn't exist she wanted to create
it. A little explanation of how she could do all this safely using
the open() system call sent her off very happy. Having been a Unix
sys admin for over 10 years I find it a most enjoyable and rewarding
job. You have to love Unix though and it is certainly not a job
that most people want. That's why we are in such short supply. :-)
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:52:32 +1200
> No, they're not. They're single machines. All of them.
Been there, seen them, they are clusers with load balancing software.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 12:55:55 +0100
> If you don't have it, how do you execute remote commands in scripts that
> need to cycle through many hosts? Or are you going to tell us that it
> is faster to connect to each one with terminal server and use the mouse?
It's faster with the mouse since someone like Jan would take mebay 5
years to get a basic grasp of scripting, whereas he wold be able to do it
with the mouse in mabey a few hundred hours of drudgery.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:58:58 +1200
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Then why isn't there a mass movement from UNIX towards Win2k? and how
> > come SUN has been having some fab quarters? so much for a dying OS.
>
> Actually - there are more new installs of W2K than unix installs - pretty
> much the unix camps stay unix and all the new stuff is W2K. No one is buying
> 30 year old technology when they buy new. Fab Quarters? They managed to save
> themselves last quarter by shutting the entire company down for a whole
> week. mandatory time off for everyone for a week - yea, a real survivor that
> one...
Had a look at NZ sales figures, most 2000 installations went to small
businesses, either a first time install, or an upgrade from NT4. Please
Jan, give some REAL information. ALso, I see SUN has signed up a new
contractor to manufacture Ultra Sparc IIe micro processors. That doesn't
take in account the 40% growth of SUN sales in New Zealand.
There are more NT installations because most of them are in small
businesses that require a server OS that an idiot can setup and use.
UNIX, however, is still there, are rocketing. BTW, if UNIX is dead,
howcome universities still heavily teach UNIX? in theory, shouldn't they
be teaching Windows 2000 Server because that is what the market place
wants (according to you Jan).
I also see the growth of Cobalt quite interesting, in that the number of
small businesses, schools, ISP's that have migrated over to RAQ's and
Qubes.
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: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:01:30 +1200
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> In article <3afdda58$0$82830$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> There is a guarantee by IBM of 35 years of no hardware failures on
> >> their mainframe line.
> >
> > I'd like to see this - show me the guarantee.
> >
> > Then show me the complete MORON that would run the same computer
> > hardware without a single second of upgrade downtime for 35 years...
>
> Look MORON, there are stories of S/390's which have been up for over 8
> years and do not have a single bit or origional hardware except the case.
>
> If you use PROPER hardware with a PROPER operating system, you can
> upgrade without downtime.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
>
> u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
Btw, the latest SUN midframe servers, you can add memory, hard disks and
processors whilst it is running, and Solaris instantly finds these new
pieces of hardware, and utilises them. Mind you, IBM s/390's and 900z's
have had this technology for years.
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: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:02:51 +1200
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > ahha
> > > ahhahhaha
> > >
> > > oh my god - that was sooo funny!!!
> > >
> > > ahhahahahahhhhahhhaaaa
> > So you don't mind paying thousands of dollars for electicity bills
> > relating to keeping a room cool (via air conditioning)? Maybe you
> > should start sharing that money tree with everyone.
>
> Hmmm
> Cost to cool room with 8 processor server: $2000 a year
> Cost to cool room with 12 processor server: $2010 a year
> Cost to embaress Matt on usenet again: priceless!
scale that baby, cluster 15 servers, then see the heat.
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: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:03:52 +1200
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > *Twisting the reality stick back around to smack Matt before he knows
> what
> > > hit him*
> > >
> > > So, a 12 processor machine beat a 8 processor machine (50% more
> processors)
> > > by a whopping 4%??
> > >
> > > Guess we can see just how horribly AIX scales... UGH!
> > >
> > > Gee, it uses a little less electricty to run the CPUs... I'll remember
> > > that... NOT!
> > You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? maybe you should go
> > back to University and continue studying System Architecture before you
> > make yourself look like a fool in this forum.
>
> Look - face it, the heat generated by 4 more processors over 8 is
> insignificant - if we were talking 32 more processors then ok something to
> talk about. 4 more processors? ANY decent server case will have no problem
> cooling that. Any half decent data center isn't going to even be able to
> measure the increase in load from 4 more processors. You are really
> desperate here aren't you?
Nope, turn off all air conditioning, close the door, and see how long it
takes before things start to heat up.
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
******************************
