Linux-Advocacy Digest #478, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Jan
Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know (Charlie Ebert)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (wtshaw)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux in college & high school (Craig Kelley)
Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 13 May 2001 12:08:07 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > I have one lone server loaded with W2K Server that has been running
> > non-stop
> > > > since Feb 17th 2000. It was rebooted one single time when SP1 was
> > released,
> > > > intentionally obviously, and never since. It has 100% uptime during
the
> > > > first period and continues 100% at this time.
> > > >
> > > > Are you starting to understand? W2K is reliable.
> > > How many users does it serve?
> >
> > It's a small department file/print server, 144 people. DHCP, DNS, WINS,
> > File&Printer, NAT, that's about it. Nothing special really...
> System Specs please.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
Abit BX-133 Mb w/current bios
Pentium III 500
256 Mb PC-133 ECC
Four 40 gig Seagate 7200 rpm ATA100 drives stripped and mirrored in hardware
(onboard HPT370 dual channel RAID controller)
2 x Intel Server NICs
generic CD-ROM and floppy
aopen case, no extra cooling
generic SIS AGP video card cause we use terminal services for remote admin
so we almost never login locally.
APC 1400 UPS connected via serial cable
EVERYTHING without exception loaded using the standard Windows 2000 Server
CD, I upgraded the NIC adapter driver cause there were some neat features in
the intel driver instead of the one from MS, but that was unnecessary.
Works perfectly solid, we started at 128 megs but upgraded to 256 when we
decided to run active directory on this machine after that department was
moved to a different floor. It's backed up over the network so no local
backup device.
Thats it. Nothing special.
CPU utilization is practically nothing - we only used the 500 cause it was
the best price break at the time of purchase.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 13 May 2001 12:09:05 -0500
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lxlL6.51$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3afdd7fd$0$82794$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:gOcL6.809$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9dji9u$q9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:PPbL6.793$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have one lone server loaded with W2K Server that has been
> > running
> > > > > non-stop
> > > > > > > since Feb 17th 2000. It was rebooted one single time when SP1
> was
> > > > > released,
> > > > > > > intentionally obviously, and never since. It has 100% uptime
> > during
> > > > the
> > > > > > > first period and continues 100% at this time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you starting to understand? W2K is reliable.
> > > > > > How many users does it serve?
> > > > >
> > > > > * One would be my first guess...
> > > >
> > > > There has been a test with couple of thousands, Win2K had the third
> > place
> > > > ever, just recently.
> > >
> > > I was referring to this Jan fellow, specifically. By the way he
presents
> > > himself around here, he strikes me more as high school kid than a
> > > professional.
> >
> > Perhaps because you hate my in-your-face style of debate. I don't dance
> > around the topic. I throw facts fast and furious. I give some hard lines
> > instead of grey conversation. I'm stating as a fact I've got W2K servers
> > that are perfectly reliable. You just don't want to accept that. HELL -
it
> > would be even better if I were a high school kid so I could add in: "and
a
> > high school kid apparently can setup a server better than you unix-gurus
> who
> > can't keep windows 2000 running for a day without a crash- AHAHA"
>
> I'm telling you that you're "style" leads most to ignore what you have to
> say. "In your face" isn't very effective and the liberal use of CAPS for
> emphasis is a dead-on signal that you're to be taken lightly if at all.
I have to use caps cause lamers won't permit HTML in newsgroups so we could
use italics, bold and proper quoting styles so we're forced to use something
else.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 08:08:57 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:AxwL6.705$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dliov$kjd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <i5iL6.653$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9dirc0$b0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> >You are trying to
> > >> > propogate the FUD/lie that W2K is not capable of steller uptimes.
> > >>
> > >> 120 Days, according to Microsoft. Yeah, really stellar.
> > >
> > > 120 days was the MEAN, not the maximum.
> >
> > If you know anything about statistics, then you'll know that quoting
only
> > the maximum is meaningless.
> >
> > 128 days MEAN _with_ a nightly reboot. Yeah stellar!
> >
> > (Mean: thererfore some actually crashed _before_ 120 days. Geez).
>
> Are you trying to suggest that there are no linux servers that ever crash
> within the first 100 or 200 days? I hate to tell you this, but there are.
>
> Mean also means some crashed AFTER 120 days.
And some didn't crash at all.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 13 May 2001 12:10:12 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
But why would you do this on purpose? That's a strawman argument.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 13 May 2001 12:12:05 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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: $2010 a year
> > Cost to embaress Matt on usenet again: priceless!
> scale that baby, cluster 15 servers, then see the heat.
Matt - you are so desperate.
Instead of being able to deal with this head on - you are going after heat
from a different voltage on processors???????
DOH! MAN - that's bad...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 13 May 2001 12:14:08 -0500
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gNoL6.75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dkulo$11g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:KLmL6.12534$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Cutting to the chase:
> > > > IIS5: 8001
> > > > Tux2: 7500
> > >
> > > Hehehe,
> > >
> > > 2000 Server: 500$
> > > Linux: 2$ (for the CD you copy it on)
> >
> > Hehehe, you can't count.
> > 2000 Server: 3,999$
> > Linux: 0$ (why burn when you can install from FTP?)
>
> Not for me thanks... I'll buy SuSE. 1 DVD beats 6 CD's any day and who
wants
> to take the time to download that mess and burn CDs just to save 69.99?
> Besides, you get docs, stickers and a really stupid looking penguin tie
clip
> to boot! (I didn't even notice mine as it fell out of the box and I later
> stepped on it barefooted. Damned thing!)
>
> As for 2000 server, we got the timed version with MSDN. Never did install
it
> and don't plan to. No reason to. Not even remotely interested.
So, you really have no ability to make any judgments on any aspect of
windows 2000. You never seen it or used it - your comments are based on,
what, speculation?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:15:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Reese wrote:
>Mr. Ebert, I think your words are extreme, but I'm in complete agreement
>with the spirit of your comments.
>
>I'm in my third IT shop, and at each job I have been ordered to install
>software in EXTREME violation of license restrictions. I have objected
>each time, and each time I've been told, "We'll do what we want until
>we're audited, and then we'll buy what we need," in exactly those words,
>as if a software audit were some sort of free consulting service.
>
>I guess what's most irritating about this management lapse not the
>arrogance or the stupidity. It's the sense of entitlement that gets me
>spinning every time. The 'something for nothing' attitude works only for
>people who think the world owes them something - anything -- everything
>-- for whatever reason.
>
>Mr. Ebert, you seem to have been in this field for awhile. I'll bet you
>remember when M$ was extremely lax about licensing enforcement. That was
>when they were trying to run Novell out of business. Novell was
>careful about licensing, and the price was high. M$ products were priced
>about half Novell's price per seat, and the licensing procedure virtually
>begged users to use the software inappropriately. They knew their market;
>businessmen with an unwarranted sense of entitlement who didn't care about
>basic business operations.
>
>This attitude is also fueling the switch to Linux in a lot of
>organizations. Until now, the change has been in the back office,
>involving staff who are knowledgeable and responsible for the operation
>of essential operations. However, at the enterprise level management must
>buy into the idea in a big way, and there the argument MUST be "Linux is
>free". I've tried it the other way around and know this for a fact. If
>you tell a businessman that Linux is more stable and provides easier
>management and hence lower cost of ownership, you'll be out of his office
>in a hurry.
>
>So the growing popularity of Linux is no sign that things are getting
>better or more rational. If you make the right decision for the wrong
>reasons, it's still a wrong decision -- the consequences of bad
>management will just be a little slower coming, that's all.
>
>I'd like to conclude by saying that it is no mystery to me why two out of
>three businesses fail within the first five years.
>
>John Reese
Dear John,
You are incorrect in the statement that Linux growth is no sign that things
are getting better or more rational!
If you have a 3 year old, and in his crib is a power cut-off saw {plugged in}
and some ring thing he can play with hoops with, if you remove the power
cut-off saw you have improved the rational of the current 3 year old
{cattle} management.
I never claimed Linux would raise their IQ's! It merely eliminates
the wrong answer pass IE. {Microsoft}
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: 13 May 2001 12:17:06 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:s3qL6.17245$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3afddc0c$0$82796$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "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?
>
> 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?
You really have never used windows have you? I mean in a server environment
and I don't mean one or two.
There are a MYRIAD of remote administratation tools, many designed to role
out changes to a slew of machines automatically. Just start with something
like SMS and go from there. Even the remote control software I use can self
install itself on a machine that has no HTTP, FTP, Telnet, SSH running. It's
something called RPC.
------------------------------
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 19:18:33 +0100
> 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.
In 8 years time we will have stories of SUNS with 0% downtime where
nothing is original except the case. By that time, we'll have S/390s with
uptimes of 16 years and no original components.
Will we ever have a windows machine with an uptime of 8 or more years. My
guess is no, partly because it is not yet capable of that level of
stability and secondly, PC hardware is too shoddy to allow for such
upgrades.
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:18:58 GMT
In article <3afebc17$0$82825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
>
>------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0DBAB.BDE843E0--
>
<SNIP>
Linux is the fastest growing OS on the planet with MS being a distant
second.
Linux now has a majority rule amongst small business.
And I've never seen comments from CEO magazine change this.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (wtshaw)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:49:00 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <Ny7I6.22197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9cqv8a$hhe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> And also Microsoft claiming that closed source software more secure than
> >> opensource, that is definately the pot calling the kettle black.
> >
> > I guess it depends on what you mean by "secure". If someone doesn't know
> > the decode algorithm, 4-bit encryption could be quite secure
There is something wrong with the philosophy that the less you know the
better off you are. "Go ahead, Charlie Brown, kick the football."
--
George W. is the weakest link...guh bye.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:22:57 GMT
In article <3afec037$0$82810$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
>
>So, you really have no ability to make any judgments on any aspect of
>windows 2000. You never seen it or used it - your comments are based on,
>what, speculation?
>
>
So Linux is growing at nearly double the growth rate that MS is.
And what do we see the Wintrolls celebrating? W2k, what else.
But what is MS celebrating? XP or W2002, what else?
If you going to be a Wintroll, why don't you pick an OS which MS now
supports. W2k was such a poor seller they dropped it in favor of
W2002.
Why is it of all the Wintroll's, your the only one who goes against the
grain of MS?
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux in college & high school
Date: 13 May 2001 11:27:20 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Linux is big at the colleges near where I live but only in the
> CS/Engineering depts.
> For the most part the rest of the student body is using MS or to a
> surprising degree Apple. The PowerBooks are quite popular out here,
> which surprised me.
Well, MacOS X is simply Apple's version of Linux.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent!
Date: 13 May 2001 11:30:43 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Please submit your votes for:
>
> What about standard trolls? I think kookis has to rate rather highly. i
> remember when (a few months ago), Bloody Viking(?) X-posted to
> comp.lang.c about a problem he was having with compiling C programs
> under Linux. Kookis got involved in the thread and ended up getting
> plonked by almost everyone on c.l.c.
How about "Most Frequently Plonked Troll At Large Award"?
[snip]
I'd nominate Erik to "most likely works at Microsoft".
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 08:26:19 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3afebc17$0$82825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> >------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0DBAB.BDE843E0--
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> Linux is the fastest growing OS on the planet with MS being a distant
> second.
That *is* surprising.
Linux is small, it *has* where to grow.
MS is huge, it has little where it can grow to, and yet it manage to be a
seocnd? Impresive.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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 08:37:15 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > That is what a lot of people are asking.
> > > >
> > > > So, in your opinion, it's morally correct to force MS to only
release
> > > > products with no networking, no GUI, no memory management, no...
> > *anything*.
> > > > Now, just *how* serious are you? Do you really think that it's a
> > position
> > > > that you can hold in court?
> > >
> > > What the hell are you talking about?
> >
> > I gave a list of integrated things in windows, you said that people
wondered
> > why they weren't split up because of that.
> > Hence, me asking you if that was your conclustion.
>
> Every time micro$oft "integrates" a "feature" to force competitors form
> the market, people wonder if its time to break up micro$oft.
>
> I think the time is long past.
>
> Happy with the explanation?
No, because that isn't what I asked.
I asked you if you think it's morally, or legally correct to force MS to not
integrate stuff that the consumer *expects* to find in an OS.
How about forcing GM to not sell cars with wheels? Or with motors?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 08:39:30 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dm4d1$6ej$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And more to the point, are the test setups even vaguely related to
reality?
> Does anyone really use a 32 GB Ram machine to serve 25 GB of data?
> Sometimes these benchmarks reminds me of the nucleur arms race - it is not
> enough to have the weaponry to destroy the world - you must be able to
> destroy it more times over than the enemy. Similarly with these
> benchmarks - it is not enough to be able to completly saturate any
> reasonable external bandwidth - you must be able to saturate it many times
> over.
That is a good point, however, there are problems with this approach.
Measuring the throughput is relatively a simple process, what you suggest
below is much more complex.
> Why don't they run benchmarks that test the use of the system in more
> demanding situations? Set up a PHP-Nuke discussion board, or a perl-based
> web email system, and compare the speeds of the different systems. Even
> better would be to specify a system such as a discussion board, and
> implement the same interface with PHP, ASP, JSP, ColdFussion, Perl, or any
> other dynamic web system and compare the results. The backend database
> should also be interchangable. Then we could really see what systems are
> the most cost-effective for web servers.
Okay, that would be good, there have been a couple of tests like that, IIRC.
On one of them, PHP beat ASP, then MS came, re-wrote the ASP code (to do the
same thing) and gained 2x speed increase, and beat all the above mentioned
system by a wide margin.
Now, that doesn't mean that PHP or ASP or anything else are better than one
another, it just demonstrate the ability of the coder in that particular
language.
And what task do you've in mind? Discussion board is *easy*, I've done two
(as an excercise) in ASP.
One worked like a Matt's BBS clone, where anything is a static HTML file,
and you update them manually via a script. Thus the only overhead you've is
when people post.
And another where you use DB, where you could do much more complex stuff,
thus you've the script+db overhead.
I think that the best solution is a combination of those two method, store
the stuff in the DB, generate static pages every couple of minutes.
This way you have both the flexebility of DB and the speed of static pages.
But I digress, widely.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: 13 May 2001 11:40:10 -0600
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, I hear people say that Linux is not ready for the desktop. I
> always wonder why. OK, I'll concede games, but that is a different
> story all together. For now, lets focus on the office/home office
> desktop, i.e. what would keep a company from going all Linux?
Actually, most people couldn't care less about games; and Linux has
quite a number of them anyway.
> Having these answers in a neat little HOWTO (How To run your company
> on Linux) would be sort of cool.
Get Microsoft to port Office to Linux.
That's the only way to do it Right Now (at least in our
organization). It'll happen eventually, but Microsoft wants to milk
the OS for every penny it's worth until they do it.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
