Linux-Advocacy Digest #538, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x.... (Scott Micciche)
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Terry Porter)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: LOMAC shocks Microsoft! (Terry Porter)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Anonymous)
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Snaggler)
Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x.... ("Sphinx367")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[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: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:09:59 +1200
> But the most common vector is not vaginal sex but anal sex, when it comes to
> sex.
>
> Rich Soyack
Aids is spreading like wild fire in India. Truckers go from village to
village, fucking people as they go, unknowingly spreading aids. That is a
fact. That is also the same case as what is happening in Africa.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Scott Micciche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris,staroffice.com.support.install.solaris,comp.unix.advocacy,alt.os.unix,alt.unix
Subject: Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x....
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 04:10:15 GMT
Sphinx367 wrote:
>
> What's the difference between Sun's free-for-download version 8 and the
> previous "professional" versions, like version 2.x and 7? According to their
> documentation (included w/the packet that I just received), version 8 is
> "unsupported". Despite this, I know of at least one organization that
> already has it employed on their network.
>
> What I'd REALLY like to know is this: Is version 8 considered a
> "watered-down" or "home-user's" version of the previous versions? Is it just
> for Unix newbies, like myself, to study and learn with? Can anyone explain
> why Sun would give away such an OS for free?? (I searched their site, and
> found nothing to explain why they did it). Is this free license intended to
> compete w/Microsoft's "ubiquitous" nature?
>
> Any comments would be greatly appreciated!
>
> --
>
> .................................................
> Bryant C Charleston
> A+ Network + MCSE (NT4)
> Linux (RedHat7) Enthusiast
Solaris 8 is not a thin version of any of the solaris environments. It
just as full featured if not more so than previous versions. If you're
looking for enhanced security, Trusted Solaris 8 has "different"
features. Sun has given Solaris 8 some nice features like WMI for web
interaction. Solaris 8 seems snappier to me than 7 or 2.6. The trends
of the time allowed for Sun to give away the binary license and it is a
good thing. It is the most popular unix out there for good reason: it
is very solid. HP-UX as a close second 8-)
--
Scott ---
Kirk to Enterprise -- beam down yeoman Rand and a six-pack.
-- Kirk, "The Corbomite Maneuver", stardate 1514.0
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:10:52 +1200
Anonymous wrote:
> Why did Eazel shutdown?
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5939697.html?tag=tp_pr
>
> What did it offer that the current Ximian GNOME 1.4
> doesn't?
>
Why post anonymously you coward.
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: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:12:02 +1200
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
> On Tue 15 May 2001 10:48, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >>
> >> Perhaps the "small-medium" NZ businesses can only afford a 'free' OS...?
> >> just cause they are poor doesn't make W2K bad.
> >
> > hmm, yet another Xenaphobic Septic Tank, why aren't I surprised? You are
> > just another example of the fabulous US education system at work.
> > Xenaphobia indoctrinated into you since you were born. Probably never been
> > out of the US,
> > LOL. What a forking luser!
> >
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner
> >
> >
>
> Xenaphobia = Fear of leather-clad warrior princesses.
>
> Perhaps you mean xen*o*phobia, fear of outsiders?
>
>
yeap, xenophobia. Bloody spell checker stuck on the bastardised sepo language.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:14:19 +1200
> This is the kind of attitude I vividly remember reading of some important
> kernel developers (sorry no reference, just consult the kernel lists):
>
> If you won't release your source then don't dare complain to us about your
> driver breaking in a later release of the kernel. It is your responsibility
> to keep up your closed source driver releases. There is no way kernel
> development will be hampered by such pleas.
>
> BTW "Linux users constantly complain about not having drivers" is FUD
> (exaggeration). I'm not complaining because my hardware is supported and for
> the future I will only be buying supported hardware with source drivers.
> Other people may be satisfied with binary only hardware releases.
>
> So now you understand the attitude even if you don't agree with it.
>
> Regards,
> Adam
All my hardware is generic off the shelf add-ons and all of them are supported.
Matthew gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[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: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:16:19 +1200
> > Ditto, bigot.
>
> So, if I hold someone's felonious behavior against them, that makes
> me a bigot, eh?
>
> You prove Joseph Sobran's point. When ever fags don't like someone's
> Non-Politically Correct opinion, they trot out the "bigot" label.
>
> Too bad for you that most people have learned that "anti-gay bigot" should
> be interpreted to mean "sane, healthy person that bigotted gays don't like"
>
>
Aaron, GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if a persons gay, who cares? I don't.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[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: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:18:20 +1200
>
> Since I don't engage in homosexual acts (that's what WOMEN are for), and
> I don't do intravenous drugs, and I haven't had a blood transfusion since
> 1973 (if at all -- appendix operation)...
>
> I'm absolutely CERTAIN that *I* don't have AIDS.
>
> Now, you know that the owner of the penis in your anus is disease free how, exactly?
>
>
Use a rubber before going hubber-hubber. Thats a simple phrase to remember, and it
applies to all people, hetro and homo.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:19:36 +1200
> >
> > Yes, it does. If you want. And if itīs a IBM/390.
> > Get *some* clue before you post.
>
> No ISP will use a s/390 for this, dimwit.
> *No one* will use it for this, for that matter. That is beyond stupid.
Mind you, SUN make some nice systems, like the Netra rack server as one
example.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 16 May 2001 04:16:58 GMT
On Tue, 15 May 2001 22:19:56 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And BTW 20 years UNIX experience has nothing to do with Linux.
Of all the tripe that I've heard,
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
utter over the years, that one is by far the most rediculous.
Its Windows that has NOTHING to do with UNIX. Linux
is a UNIX ****clone*****.
>
> flatfish
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 16 May 2001 04:28:00 GMT
quux111 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:9drvnj$bhb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>>> When did BSD cease to become UNIX.
>>>
>>> Technically it never was.
>>
>> Sure it was.
>>
>> -Ed
>>
> AIUI, BSD is not, and has never been, UNIX(tm). It *is* a Unix, however.
> The whole "is it Unix or aint' it" argument has never been less meaningful
> than now; none of the most popular Unixen are real UNIX(tm). Solaris, like
> Linux, is a hybrid of SysV and BSD. The *BSDs are all derivates of BSD
> 4.4, which incorporated pieces of SVR4.
> Interestingly, the *only* "real" UNIX(tm) is UnixWare (now owned by
> Caldera). UnixWare is on the cusp of death, and if it dies, there will be
> *no* "real" UNIX(tm) OSes left!
Actually, youre quite incorrect.
The following have most recently been registered as UNIX(TM) operating systems:
AIX 4.3.1 and higher
Solaris 7
Solaris 8
The following have been registered as UNIX(TM) operating systems by the Open Group:
Tru64 5.0 running on alpha hardware
HP/UX 10.2
HP/UX 11.0
AIX 4.2
OS/390 V2R4
NCR UNIX SYSVR4
UX/4800 12.3
SCO unixware 7.0.1
IRIX 6.5
Reliant UNIX 5.43 and higher
Solaris 2.6
www.opengroup.org
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 16 May 2001 04:29:55 GMT
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have. NVIDIA drivers w/ gforce2 and kernel 2.4-20 with certian 3-D games.
>> >>
>> >> Kernel panic, unrecoverable, hard lock.
>>
>> > And so you use binary proprietary drivers - and this proves what about
>> > the quality of 2.4 exactly ?
>>
>> I'm not saying that the 2.4 kernel sucks, you bitchass nutslap. I'm saying
>> that I can get it to lock consistently. I can also get the FreeBSD kernel
>> to lock, the BeOS kernel, windows NT 4.0, 2000, 98, ME, XP, and also Solaris
>> 7 and 8, HP/UX and SCO. A lockable kernel doesnt mean its a piece of shit, it
>> only means that I could get it to do something that you insinuated might not
>> be possible. :)
>>
> How do you go about locking up say Solaris then??
Easiest way is to fill up swap on bland installs...:)
Ive also done it with poorly written opengl applications.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: LOMAC shocks Microsoft!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 16 May 2001 04:27:46 GMT
On Tue, 15 May 2001 19:55:43 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Porter wrote:
>
>>> In the server market, maybe.
>>>
>>> In the desktop market, Linux is hardly to be seen.
>>
>> Firstly the desktop market is at the mercy of a certain
>> criminal company, who, using preditory trade practices
>> have forced manufacturers to sell pc's with *their*
>> lame desktop. Search for 'Sherman Antitrust Law' if you
>> don't know what that means.
>
> Yet they haven't been punished for it yet, and may not be.
Then again they might,...looks like we will have to wait and see?
>
>> Secondly, I have had a Linux only desktop since 1997.
>
> Three, four years? Is that all?
Yep, thats all. I removed Win95 from my pc in August 1997
and have run Linux exclusively since then.
Well ok ... I did have to use freedos for a while, as the
PIC burner I was using ran under DOS. But about a year
ago I designed and built a burner that ran under Linux,
and did all the things I wanted a burner to do, ie
burn in-circuit.
Its url is in my sig below.
>
>> Thirdly, Windows lovers see the world covered in Windows
>> desktops, they suffer from a certain personal bias, and
>> their observations are therefore suspect.
>
> Just like _your_ opinions suffer from a certain personal bias, and are
> therefore just as suspect.
Agreed :)
>
> --
> Pete
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 16 May 2001 04:30:25 GMT
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > . wrote:
>>
>> >> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> "." wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I have. NVIDIA drivers w/ gforce2 and kernel 2.4-20 with certian 3-D
>> >>>> games.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Kernel panic, unrecoverable, hard lock.
>> >>
>> >>> And so you use binary proprietary drivers - and this proves what about
>> >>> the quality of 2.4 exactly ?
>> >>
>> >> I'm not saying that the 2.4 kernel sucks, you bitchass nutslap. I'm
>> >> saying
>> >> that I can get it to lock consistently. I can also get the FreeBSD kernel
>> >> to lock, the BeOS kernel, windows NT 4.0, 2000, 98, ME, XP, and also
>> >> Solaris
>> >> 7 and 8, HP/UX and SCO. A lockable kernel doesnt mean its a piece of
>> >> shit, it only means that I could get it to do something that you
>> >> insinuated might not
>> >> be possible. :)
>> >>
>>
>> > There is not a damn thing the kernel can do since you loaded a binary only
>> > module into it. I have an nvidia card to and don't use nvidias driver
>> > because they couldn't program themselves out of a wet paper bag.
>>
>> So you're wasting your nvidia card on crappy 2d bullshit. What a knowledgable
>> user you are...
>>
>> > Their
>> > driver is horribly unstable compared to everything else on my system. When
>> > I used their driver before the system would crash once a week or so and it
>> > was that damn driver every time. As soon as I removed it all the crashes
>> > went away.
>>
>> Actually a new version was released last week specifically for the 2.4 kernel.
>>
>> > In all my years of using linux I have only had the os crash for 2 reasons.
>> > I the nvidia driver, 2 failed hardware. Kind of hard for the os to keep
>> > running if the cpu fails etc.
>>
>> Then you havent been running it *nearly* hard enough. Ive crashed just about
>> every unix still in existance except AIX.
>>
>> -----.
>>
>> --
>> "George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
>>
>> ---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
> What were you doing wrong then?? (crashing unixes that is)
Screwing around. Its fun.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:41:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Why post anonymously you coward.
Who cares?
What's that got to do with Eazel
shutting down?
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:47:56 +1200
Anonymous wrote:
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> >
> > Why post anonymously you coward.
>
> Who cares?
>
> What's that got to do with Eazel
> shutting down?
>
>
They couldn't receive another round of funding. This is not unusual
during a downturn. VC are being more stingy with the money because
there is less to give out. Eazel did the right thing to fold up before
they started getting into debt. This is not a concern, as the product
is opensource, the development will continue with a whole new set of
developers. Had this been a commerical operation, the end user would be
screwed.
As for the comment regarding posting anonymous, why? have you got
something to hide?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Snaggler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 05:07:36 GMT
On Wed, 16 May 2001 02:01:59 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <3b01a496$0$2882$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Johansan wrote:
>> >I had to blink and look twice: Linux has finally made it's appearence at
>> >tpc.org and it's in first place!
>> >
>> >http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
>> >
>> >There you have it, a linux powered result of 2733 smoking past the 1699
>> >result posted for a W2K box.
>> >
>> >Well, I extend my hand in congratulations to the penguins for their stunning
>> >entry into the world of high end database benchmarks. I'm certain suddenly
>> >the TPC will be in style again and accepted for all to see.
>> >
>>
>> {rediculous bullcrap deleted}
>>
>> Yes Jan. As we already knew, Linux blows the crap out of W2k,
>> whether it be a single PC in single processor mode, SMP contest,
>> or a CLUSTER.
>
>What? It took twice the hardware and 4 times the cost for Linux to
>eek out a small percentage of performance over a single Win2K box.
>
>Linux has yet to show up anywhere near the real metric: the TPC-C.
>
>-c
>
How can Linux "show up" when it wasn't even tested in the TPC-C? Go
ahead and look at the "all results" section and you won't see ONE
single Linux box, although equivalent Linux versions could be
constructed. Seems to me there are biased results here. My solution:
don't quote results from sources who aren't impartial. Why come back
every other day with some new skewed source that says "Some
OS/Database whipped some other OS/Database," when the people who
designed the test can't even agree on the rules? Why is it so hard to
test on the same hardware or equivalent hardware? Why stack a cluster
against something that's not clustered or doesn't have the same amount
of procs in the system? Also, why net let performance experts from
whichever side configure the systems for optimal performance? Is it
that hard to be fair?
------------------------------
From: "Sphinx367" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris,staroffice.com.support.install.solaris,comp.unix.advocacy,alt.os.unix,alt.unix
Subject: Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x....
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 05:09:02 GMT
Well it will very interesting to see what happens now that Sun's latest and
greatest can be downloaded (or bought inexpensively) and installed/tested on
home or business machines at will (for evaluation purposes). I've never even
heard of Microsoft "giving away" a fully-featured OS in this manner. I'd
imagine that this oppurtunity will give many Windows "addicts" who are
interested in the various Unix distributions the "push" to switch over to
Unix. Does anyone else have any comments or ideas on what effect offering
Solaris 8 for free might have on the balance between Unix and Windows OS
usage, particularly with regard to business (OR home) use?
--
.................................................
Bryant C Charleston
A+ Network + MCSE (NT4)
Linux (RedHat7) Enthusiast
"Scott Micciche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sphinx367 wrote:
> >
> > What's the difference between Sun's free-for-download version 8 and the
> > previous "professional" versions, like version 2.x and 7? According to
their
> > documentation (included w/the packet that I just received), version 8 is
> > "unsupported". Despite this, I know of at least one organization that
> > already has it employed on their network.
> >
> > What I'd REALLY like to know is this: Is version 8 considered a
> > "watered-down" or "home-user's" version of the previous versions? Is it
just
> > for Unix newbies, like myself, to study and learn with? Can anyone
explain
> > why Sun would give away such an OS for free?? (I searched their site,
and
> > found nothing to explain why they did it). Is this free license intended
to
> > compete w/Microsoft's "ubiquitous" nature?
> >
> > Any comments would be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > --
> >
> > .................................................
> > Bryant C Charleston
> > A+ Network + MCSE (NT4)
> > Linux (RedHat7) Enthusiast
> Solaris 8 is not a thin version of any of the solaris environments. It
> just as full featured if not more so than previous versions. If you're
> looking for enhanced security, Trusted Solaris 8 has "different"
> features. Sun has given Solaris 8 some nice features like WMI for web
> interaction. Solaris 8 seems snappier to me than 7 or 2.6. The trends
> of the time allowed for Sun to give away the binary license and it is a
> good thing. It is the most popular unix out there for good reason: it
> is very solid. HP-UX as a close second 8-)
> --
> Scott ---
>
> Kirk to Enterprise -- beam down yeoman Rand and a six-pack.
> -- Kirk, "The Corbomite Maneuver", stardate 1514.0
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
