Linux-Advocacy Digest #489, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Matan Ziv-Av)
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft ("mmnnoo")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: MS POLL! (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (kosh)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Linux in college & high school (somebody)
Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux (Nigel Feltham)
Re: OT Movies (Nigel Feltham)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 18:10:27 -0400
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > Where in my statements did I say I was afraid of homosexuals. I am not
> > afraid of them anymore than I am afraid of people with bipolar disorder
> > or any other genetic malfunction.
>
> If you have really firm evidence that homosexualtiy is genetic, I suggest
> you publish.
Then you admit that it's a choice.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matan Ziv-Av)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:08:22 GMT
On Sun, 13 May 2001 12:13:12 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> Interestingly, the people from Agenda Computing (who produce a cute
> Linux-based PDA) have been working on something they call "Execute
> in place". Essentially, if you have a directly accessible mass storage
> device (Flash), you don't need to load the program into another tier
> of memory (RAM) to execute it. Same OS, same program, but one machine
> makes a statutory copy, and the other doesn't.
Of course you conveniently forget that the processor used must have
internal cache memory, so a copy is still made.
--
Matan Ziv-Av. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:17:36 GMT
In article <5ApL6.80$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom Wilson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> Actually, if compiler manufacturers had agreed on a common name mangling
> scheme, most of what it offers wouldn't have been a neccesity. Common,
> set-in-stone interfaces are a good idea, also. I'm far from a Microsoft
> fan, but I have to admit COM has its' strong points particularly with
> distributed aplications.
<snip>
What did COM do for distributed applications? Nothing! Maybe you mean
DCOM. I never used that because it was 'in the works' the whole time I
was developing for windows. Corba would have met our needs very well, but
instead we just waited and waited for the unfulfilled promise of DCOM.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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 18:22:21 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > JS PL wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "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]...
> > > > > > > > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's a good thing as long as it's something that the OS
> > > should
> > > > > > > provide.
> > > > > > > > > > > Today, can you really sell an OS without a browser? Can
> you
> > > > > *find*
> > > > > > > an OS
> > > > > > > > > > > that doesn't come with a browser?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What OS besides Windows ha an "-integrated-" browser?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > KDE? GNOME?
> > > > > > > > > Not an OS, but same principal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > KDE and GNOME are not OSs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Konqueror is indeed a file manager/browser, but it is not
> > > "integrated"
> > > > > > > > into the OS. It is just another application.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IE isn't integrated into the OS, it's just another application.
> > > > > > > It *is*, however, integrated into the shell, same as Konqueror.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tell Micro$oft it isnt integrated into the OS. They say if you
> remove
> > > it
> > > > > > Windows becomes unuseable. They even presented an unuseable
> version to
> > > > > > Judge Jackson to prove it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, what "shell" is Konquer integrated into? It seems to be just
> > > > > > another app to me. I can install it, uninstall it, use it in a KDE
> > > > > > session, sue it without a KDE session. How is it not another app?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What browser is "integrated" into GNOME?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nautilous, by RIP Eazel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is nautilus actually being shipped in GNOME yet? And how
> "integrated"
> > > is
> > > > > > it? Can you remove it and still have filemanange capabilities?
> Will
> > > the
> > > > > > OS work?
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't matter if you CAN remove it, or CAN'T remove it. It's a
> > > useless
> > > > > argument - Microsoft can bundle a ham sandwich with windows if they
> so
> > > > > choose.
> > > >
> > > > Thats not what the consent decree says.
> > >
> > > SORRY, the consent decree does state that they may integrate anything
> they
> > > like into Windows.
> > >
> > > (E) Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in
> > > which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly
> > > conditioned upon:
> > >
> > > (1) the licensing of any other Covered Product, Operating
> > > System Software product or other product (provided, however, that this
> > > provision in and of itself shall not be construed to prohibit
> > > Microsoft from developing integrated products);
> > >
> >
> >
> > Provide the REST of the citation.
>
> Why? You can't seem to grasp the relevant portion. I don't think I'll put
> anymore up for you to misread.
Gee, does this translate into... "if I put any more up, they will see
parts incriminating Microsoft"?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS POLL!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:36:51 +0100
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> I've decided to start another POLL!
>
> An important POLL!
>
> If you work in a shop which is practically 100% Microsoft
> and your running IIS I want your input.
>
> How many times have you heard this from your systems administrator,
> management, and other WINTROLLS -
>
> When I love you hit town and wiped out your network did you hear from
> everybody, "DAMN KIDS".
>
> When the worm wiped out your IIS web servers did you hear "DAMN KIDS".
>
> Have you heard, the only reason we are having problem in this shop is
> we are connected to the internet? Especially if your an E-business
> MS shop!
>
If you work in the department where the IIS server is then why not try to
find a spare PC and intall Linux and apache on it then next time the IIS
system goes down you can switch over to that linux machine and show that
bonehead of a manager that your system works more reliably with far fewer
security problems and see what he has to say about that.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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 18:26:29 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dmihu$5i6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dmgt0$n0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >
> > >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?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Its more like forcing GM to not sell matching luggage sets and road
> atlases
> > with their cars. Wheels and motor are essential parts of the car - no one
> > complains about an OS that comes with file systems, or network support.
>
> Rick does. He thinks that MS should be broken up because of this.
> I wonder if he thinks that MS should be broken up for adding FS support too.
>
You are a liar.
> > But
> > people *would* complain if their were forced to buy a new set of suitcases
> > and road maps with their new car (especially if the car broke down when
> you
> > tried to take them out!), even though they are essential for some uses of
> > the car (e.g., going on holiday).
>
> > A good browser is needed for only one of
> > a myriad of uses for a computer - namely, web browsing.
>
> What are the most common tasks of a computer today?
> To browse the web, isn't it?
>
Is it? Compare the number hours spent on WP, SS, DB, graphics
production, video production , etc, etc, etc. Now, how does that compare
to web browsing?
> Ten years ago, there was no reason for consumer OS to come with networking.
> Today?
>
That has nothing to do eith "integrating" a browser in order to kill off
competition.
> Three years ago, DVD & CDR where scarce, including them in the OS would
> benefit only a small part of the OS buyers.
> Today, DVD & CDR are quite common, I don't see a reason why I would've to
> buy a DVD Encoder or a CDR burning program just because "it always was so".
>
> For that matter, what about audio CD? Why should MS be allowed to bundle cd
> player, but not a DVD player? DVD are starting to become as common as CDs
> are.
>
Who said m$ shouldnt be allowed to bundle a DVD?
> It looks to me as if you (and certainly Rick) are supporting for stagnating
> MS.
Look again.
> Forcing it to a complete feature freeze.
> I don't see how this benefit the client.
I never suggested any such thing and you know it. I have stated, again
and again, there is a difference between "adding features" and waiting
until competitors add third party features and then killing the
competition, which is what m$ does.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 16:29:13 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mmnnoo wrote:
> Linux badly needs a good web browser. My wife doesn't like to use Linux
> for just this reason. She doesn't like it when the computer freezes up
> because Netscape went berserk, or when Netscape suddenly disappears
> because it went berserk again but I finally set a ulimit. She doesn't
> like it when mozilla 0.9 renders our bank's webpage as gobbeldy-gook and
> she can't do the checkbook.
>
> That said, I think mozilla will almost certainly become a good browser.
> Unless it reaches critical mass, though, web designers won't test their
> pages against it, and some pages won't render correctly.
>
Why not try konqueror it is stable and fast. On my boxes it renders pages
in about half the time that opera does. Mozilla will be ready in time but
you should give konqueror a try.
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mlw"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> Having these answers in a neat little HOWTO (How To run your company on
>> Linux) would be sort of cool.
>>
>> ------------------------
>> 42 was the answer, 49 was too soon.
>
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:03:21 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>>> Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>>>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>DOS was a (very primitive) OS. And the *only* way to get access to
>>>>its services was by way of those INT21h routines.
>>>
>>> Thus the point; this was not commonly done, since DOS didn't really
>>> HAVE any services to speak of, at least not ones that weren't already
>>> available directly from the BIOS. I'll go along with "BIS", BIOS
>>> Instruction Set, but calling it an API is definitely a revision of
>>> history.
>>
>>You clearly know nothing at all about this subject.
>
> Believe it or not, I honestly wish people would stop saying that.
Why should they, when you act like a true asshole, knowing about nothing
of the subject.
>
>>Nearly none of the DOS calls were available also from the BIOS.
>
> No, many of the DOS calls were alternate forms of BIOS calls, from what
> I've been told.
>
You should select your informers better next time. They are wrong.
>>The BIOS has no facilities for opening / closing files,
>>It can not write to files etc etc. BIOS has no concept of memory blocks.
>>BIOS does not know how to exec a program other than bootstrapping the
>>machine. BIOS knows nothing at all about directories, as well as
>>networks. Only the keyboard input, character output to the screen and
>>printer and a little bit dealing with time and date could be done (and
>>then not complete) by the BIOS.
>>The BIOS knows about hardware and how to access it, INT21h uses the BIOS
>>to do exactly that. So DOS has very little hardware dependencies build
>>in.
>
> No shit. Yet DOS applications are so entirely hardware dependent that
> they don't even need DOS as more than a bootloader.
>
BS to the extreme.
>>Max, you may be good as a word twister.
>>As a programmer you are a complete loss.
>>So please just stop making a fool of yourself.
>
> It's my dime. State your case and shut your trap, I like to say.
>
TMax, stop this nonsense about API and INT21 not API
By the way, did you notice that API means "Application Program Interface"
and *not* the description thereof?
Peter
--
Stop repeating yourself. Try something original - like suicide
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[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 23:09:57 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> This is the clue, see. "They", whatever they might be, started being
> called "APIs", *instead of routines or interrupts or simply function
> calls*, though all three existed <whether distinctly or not> before
> APIs. API is a term that was coined to denote a particular interface,
> not a particular kind of interface: the interface between an
> "application program" and a *platform*, i.e. Windows. Later, by
> definition, the term was applied to all descriptions of a particular set
> of libraries' function calls. But the defining feature that makes POSIX
> and WIN32 interface specifications "APIs", and the list of interrupts
> that DOS 'handled' not, is simply the primitive form. Ayende said this
> made it a 'primitive API', but really it just makes DOS a primitive
> platform; one that didn't *have* "an API".
>
So you are telling us that the programs running under DOS were not
to be called Applications, right?
They were "somehow primitive", not really programs, but a lesser,
"primitive" form of programs, right, TMax?
You spew BS. I vote *you* the most dumbest wintroll in this group.
Before I thought it should be Jan Johanson, but he surely deserves
just second place. He never managed such stupid stuff
Peter
--
There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:43:45 GMT
On 13 May 2001 12:09:05 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Some old-timer told me that it was /italics/, *bold*, and _underline_.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:31:14 GMT
On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:04 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
< snip >
I snipped everything above because we've beaten it to death. You could
probably write my response to most of it yourself.
>The FSF seems to be 'playing dirty', because the only people who can get
>"tricked" by this slippery license. Perhaps the GPL is nothing but a
>dirty trick. But the only people who can get tricked are the ones who
I don't think they are playing dirty, and unlike some people who disagree
with you, I don't think they intend to trick anyone. My understanding
is that they have added some explanation to accompany some of their
libraries to explain exactly what their position is.
I also don't have any problem with the FSF prohibiting the use of their
code or libraries in commercial products. I have an issue with their
chose line of defense.
>want to build commercial software, the proprietary closed source kind
>that can be easily profiteered on, or the open source kind that can be
>sold the same way. Les claims this inhibits some software from being
Not quite true. The RIPEM code was incompatible with the GPL only
because it had a license provision against export in violation of
US export law. Without that provision, there would have been no
problem with the GPL.
>>And how is the contract formed? You seem to agree that you have not
>>become obligated to the contract simply by reading the source code. I
>>don't see how there can be any sign of agreement or obligation until
>>you either attempt to do something which law prohibits and the license
>>allows, or until you manifest your assent and acceptance to the
>>agreement in some other fashion.
>
>Again, I would heartily encourage you to take the matter up with the
>court; I don't believe in such implied contracts either. Still, nobody
>has ever been commercially ensnared in the GPL in this matter, and the
>same can't be said of proprietary software.
>
This is a dishonest tactic. You assert that something is supported by
contract law and then respond to arguments that you are incorrect
about the law with instruction to take it up in court.
< snip of IOU example >
>If you could come up with an example that didn't involve money at all, I
>might understand your point.
>
It's not worth the trouble. The money was supposed to substitute for
whatever return obligation the FSF does want. Perhaps the example
requires too much knowledge of copyright law to be easy to follow.
>Perhaps they're just bluffing. You'll have to call their bet to see
I don't really care if they are bluffing or not. I intend to honor
the GPL as RMS interprets it because I believe it's the ethical thing
to do. I might feel differently if I didn't find out about his
position before I had invested time and money, but I cannot argue
that I've been tricked when I know his position ahead of time.
But I don't intend to apply Stallman's version of copyright law to
other situations. In every other case, unless there is an appropriate
license provision to the contrary, I'll assume that it's okay to
dynamically link to the library even if I don't have the right to
distribute the library.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: somebody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux in college & high school
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:48:21 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> stands accused of saying:
>Well, MacOS X is simply Apple's version of Linux.
is freebsd simply freebsd's version of Linux?
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 00:05:09 +0100
mlw wrote:
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > > One really must ask the question. Why does ANYONE buy NT/2K server?
> > Better yet, for a small business, Cobalt Qube (now part of SUN) @
> > $NZ3500 +GST, that provides, file server, webserver, email server,
> > shared net access, fire wall and lots more. All of this can be admined
> > through a browser, would be the ideal solution, and whats even better,
> > they won't be shitting brick over whether they have the correct amount
> > of licenses.
>
> That's a real concern. I know a few companies seriously considering Linux
> as a replacement for their aging NT boxes, one big thing is that they are
> afraid, not of not having the licenses, but having to prove that they do
> if they are accused by some disgruntled employee.
>
> With Linux they do not have to prove anything.
>
And they can upgrade the performance of their system by switching to Linux
without replacing any of the hardware.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Movies
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 00:09:08 +0100
> Well that's nice that you work in such lovely datacenters but surely you
> agree that movies *never* capture the real appeal of technical work (for
> instance the complexity mentioned by the original poster).
>
My favourite is the scene in Jurassic park where the kids instantly
recognise the unix system and know how to reboot it ( but obviously not how
to just restart the electric fence control deamon).
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:48:06 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dmtqp$a0c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dmrfg$97o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> These are all fair points. But as you say, discussion board is a few
levels
> above a "Hello, world!" program, whereas the current static web page tests
> are on a par with "Hello, world!". So it would be a step in the right
> direction at least. But I am perfectly open to whatever other example
> systems you can suggest for benchmarking - a discussion board was only a
> suggestion.
A discussion board is only a few levels above a hello world program from a
scripting point of view.
Static content is *simpler* then hello world :-)
I think that the only possible use of totally static content are image
servers.
Not much to look at.
Spec99 require that at least X% (30, I believe) to be dynamically generated.
> An alternative method of benchmarking, instead of increasing the
> complexities, would be to enforce other barriers that would make the
results
> of more use. As you say, the best test is for clients to test systems for
> themselves, but that is only economically feasible for large budget
> installations. So the benchmarks should have enforced price limitations.
> For example, the systems should have a price tag of less than $5000 (or
> perhaps several price classes) for all hardware and software (including
any
> client access licences required). Support costs and other TCO
calculations
> should not be included, since these are highly dependant on the client and
> their technical abilities - claims that Linux costs more because you have
to
> retrain your staff are irrelevant to companies with Linux-competant staff.
> It would be reasonable, however, to include the cost of the commercial
> version of installed Linux versions (i.e., include the price of Red Hat
> Linux rather than downloading it for free). Other interesting limitations
> would be on physical size and power requirements - these may seem minor
> points, but they are not totally irrelevant.
The problem with that that you got very compotent people here, and they will
cut corners to raise their system score.
A lot of check points are abandoned, and things that you may need in real
life are ignored, because they decrease performance.
Spec99 are all RAID 0 or RAID0+1, for example.
What you want is not a benchmark, you want a pricewatch for complete
solutions.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:49:01 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dn044$eb5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In other words, you used the worst instance of IE that you could find,
> > knowing full well that when I, and everybody else, talk about IE, we
> > talk about IE on x86 on Windows. Go to a friend with windows and see
> > what it's
> > *really* like.
> > *Then* come back and tell me what browser is better than it.
>
> If it isn't cross platform, than there's a limit as to how good it can
> be.
If it *is* cross platform, then there's a limit as to how good it can be.
This is just as true a statement.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
