Linux-Advocacy Digest #548, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 09:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? ("~¿~")
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Mike Petersen)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Phill)
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Phill)
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (pip)
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (pip)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jon Johansan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:14:31 GMT
On Wed, 16 May 2001 02:24:32 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why are you downloading that shit at work?
>
Doesn't matter WHERE it was downloaded. Tivoli is spyware that allows
your company to know exactly what is on your system no matter where it
came from.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: 16 May 2001 07:19:15 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <TN0M6.56211$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Myers
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I know, the Open Source promise is a strong one, but in the real
world,
> > > >it just doesn't pan out properly.
> > > >
> > > >-c
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hey DICKHEAD! Or should we call you the GERMAN saying DICHHEAD!
> > >
> > > http://slashdot.org/articles/01/05/14/1858201.shtml
> > >
> > > Looks like Microsoft has admitted to another back door in IIS!
> >
> > Um... slashdot is stupider than yahoo - this is an over 1 year old story
> > regurgitated on yahoo (and since deleted) that has been taken care of
ages
> > ago. There is no back door in IIS. This is old news.
>
> Please use correct English syntax next time, there is no such thing as
> "stupider".
>
You've never used "supider?"
There are several not-really-english words we use and that is one that I
use...
It's still stupid and yahoo is more stupid than slashdot in this respect
(then again, /. should know better so perhaps /. is the more stupid one)
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:19:51 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Why post anonymously you coward.
> >
> > Who cares?
That's a good question. One with an obvious answer.
Obviously MG cares. Why? I'm not sure -- but it's a tad scary.
> > 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.
During a downturn? Eazel shutdown solely because of the 'downturn'?
That's rich. They shutdown for the same reason many businesses do.
They didn't make enough money to sustain themselves. What is so hard about
to understand about that? Can you post a link where I can examine where and
how Eazel did, as you say, 'the right thing to fold up before they started
going into debt'?
And I beg to differ as to whether forking the entire development of a
product is 'not a concern'
Because it's open source? Is that really some sort of guaranteed panacea?
I think someone is putting something in this open source that should require
a prescription!
> As for the comment regarding posting anonymous, why? have you got
> something to hide?
Why do you care how this person posts?
Why does it matter?
------------------------------
From: Mike Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 07:37:38 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave Martel wrote:
> Just tried SLRN on my FreeBSD system. Didn't care for it. Guess Agent
> has spoiled me. <g>
>
> However...I just spent four hours trying to get wine set up so I could
> run Agent under it. Never had any trouble under linux but for some
> reason it's really fighting me under FreeBSD. I'm about ready to admit
> defeat until I get to know my way around FreeBSD better, and just go
> with SLRN for now.
>
Try KNode, it is very easy to use and looks strikingly like Agent.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 16 May 2001 07:36:11 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >> >
> > > Score one for Win 2K on the Unisys machine.
> >
> > <bowing>
>
> ARE YOU REALLY TAKING CREDIT FOR THAT RESULT!?
Not me personally, of course not. However, The single box W2K score is the
best of all the single box scores. The linux score is the only clustered
score.
>
> > But it isn't and this has nothing to do with XP. The linux solution
isn't
> > available yet. The Windows 2000 solutions uses pre-SP1 (i.e., virgin
release
> > code) Advance Server, not even the latest code.
>
> So what?
So, lets retest using kernel version 2.0 and you won't have a problem with
that?
>
> > > A non-point.
> >
> > I wonder what you'd say if the tables were turned... nevermind, I
already
> > know.
>
> Then I'll not bother with you anymore, Mr. Know-It-All.
Promise?
>
> > > > And, what's this? The linux solution uses 16x700 Mhz PIIIs and the
W2K
> > > > result uses 8x700 Mhz PIIIs.
> > >
> > > Nice to see Linux scaling so nicely!
> >
> > Now THAT was funny! And, in fact, it's not scaling well, it didn't
double
> > the performance with twice the processors like W2K has done.
>
> In general, scalability is not linear.
In general that is true - there have already been several demonstrations of
"near" linear scalabilty of Adv Server on a unisys 16 processor machine.
>
> > > "Plain jane" scsi? Where'd you come up with that one?
> >
> > US slang - figure it out.
>
> I'm glad to hear that SCSI is plain jane -- might as well just
> buy an IDE drive.
Well, there is more than one type of SCSI and way to connect using SCSI.
yes, there is such thing as a "plain jane" SCSI setup versus the
cherry-on-top-deluxe version. Get it?
>
> > > It would have been nice to see the slower adapter on the linux box,
> > > and to have a better breakdown of the bottlenecks on both systems.
> >
> > why - to lower the results on the linux box? weird...
>
> You are really a dense person.
whatever...
>
> > > As happened here... $317 for Linux (why did they cost it as four
copies?)
> > > versus $2400 for Win 2000 Advanced Server.
> >
> > because there were four machines in the cluster. redhat requires one
> > licensed copy per server.
>
> Bullshit. Show me where the $79 version of RedHat requires a license.
You paid $79 for it - did you think that you OWNED that copy? You licensed
it for a single server. Read the license.
>
> > yes, that is true. Unix servers cost more than wintel servers, we
already
> > knew this.
>
> And, of course, you tried to hide the fact in your gallimaufric
> rhodomontade.
So, I see you do not try to deny that fact. Good. Meanwhile, your being
obleiqe
>
> > > The total cost of software in the SGI system is essentially due to the
> > > cost of IBM's DB2 software. That's about $316000 plus $50000 versus
> > > $16,000 plus $10000 for the Unisys solution.
> >
> > but that's what they ran... and that's what it cost. If they had a
cheaper
> > solution, why didn't they use it?
>
> Don't ask me! I assume they are more concerned with performance
> or with vendor relationships than with cost.
Oh really? So now suddenly you acknowledge cost is meaningless when Linux vs
W2K is discussed? I'll remember that (shoudl be easy, I've always know
that). Then again, their performance was less that the same per CPU on W2K
so even performance is nothing to be proud of.
>
> > I'm not, necessarily, but finally it's dawning that the cost of the OS
is
> > insignificant. A "free" OS means squat when the hardware and other
software
> > makes up the lion share of the price.
>
> We already knew this.
But I don't hear it being acknowledged every time I hear "but linux is free"
being shouted herein.
>
> > Are you starting to see why I
> > mentioned this? Linux being "free" means nothing. Zippo.
>
> Bull shit. For example, a PostgreSQL solution on Linux might
> be completely adequate for one's needs. Then the cost of
> the OS means something.
Perhaps but we're not interested in home user/tiny business caliber apps.
I'm interested in serious computing power and applications.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > So lets see, the 10/31/01 clustered result is going head to head
against
> > > > last years result using advanced server without clustering. Anyone
wanna
> > > > take bets on what a Datacenter driven, clustered W2K/SQL2K result
using
> > the
> > > > same number of processors is going to do to that score?? I will...
> > (hint:
> > > > check out the TPC-C results for BOTH raw performance and
> > price/performance).
> > >
> > > I sure would check them out, if I could find the comparable setup.
Can
> > > you provide the link so we know we're looking at the same data?
Thanks.
> > > I'd rather look at the specs myself than have to filter out your
> > > ejaculatory verbiage.
> >
> > I posted the link to the TPC-H. You can easily navigate to the TPC-C
results
> > from there too. Just start at www.tpc.org and have fun. it's not my job
to
> > help you perform some basic clicks (but, what the heck, here you go:
TPC-C
> > by performance: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
and
> > TPC-C by price/performance:
> > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_price_perf_results.asp)
>
> I found those links, dude. But they don't show comparable measurements.
> The units are different, and there's no comparison between the SGI
solution
> and W2K in units of tpmC. So you're blowing smoke as far as I can tell.
You didn't go into the advanced sorting did you?
>
> > I totally and completely agree with you 100% The cost of the OS is
trivial.
> > I will remind you that we agree on this every time someone says "but
linux
> > is free!"
>
> Linux is free. DB2 and SQL Server are not. SQL Server may be a lot
> cheaper. However, then I'm tempted to throw back the same phrase that
> gets thrown out when talking about free software: You get what you
> pay for. If that logic holds, then DB2 is the preferred solution.
> But who says logic holds?
Some logic maintains that there is a limit to every generalization. "You get
what you paid for" applys between a yugo and a Lincoln - but is not as
applicable between a Lexus and a Mercedes.
>
> If SQL Server is really as good as DB2, then Microsoft is either giving
> a hell of a deal, or dumping the software to penetrate the server
> market.
Perhaps they are following the lead set by companies like
Borland/Interprise. Produce great software at a reasonable price (i.e., less
than your competitors) to help get more people using it - more users/better
support and community products -> more users... Maybe IBM should drop the
price of DB2 by 60% and if it's the better product people will flock to it.
If DB2 is better tahn SQL 2K and costs the same (or close) I'd switch in a
heartbeat. (like I've always said, _if_ Linux was better, and even if it
cost more, I'd buy it!)
>
> > > Can't see how this is a comparison of two operating systems, but I do
> > > agree that it puts SGI and IBM in a somewhat bad light.
> >
> > Again I agree but I'm posting something being reported on every
pro-Linux
> > news site and even ZDNet now. The very first appearence of a system
running
> > linux in a major official independent benchmark. And it didn't do too
well
> > (when comparing apples to apples that is).
>
> Actually, we don't know, because there is no valid way to transform
> the SGI results to results on the UNISYS hardware, and vice versa.
There is no need to do that. This isn't a test of just software or just
hardware. This is a test of a combination of the two. It's designed to pit
_solutions_ against each other, not a single vendor against another.
> Personally, I'd be curious to see a purely free database system
benchmarked.
So would I. Would love to see MySQL or PostgreSQL benchmarked against the
pay-to-play guys.
> But I doubt there are many takers in free software willing to pay
> the $1500 per annum fee for associate membership, let alone the $9500
> for full voting membership. In any case, associate membership is
restricted:
Sometimes you have to pay to play - it's just that way. Are you telling me
there are no linux backers who've got $10K handy? Can't the guys from
VALinux or Redhat fork over a few bucks or are their budgets strained
supplying the bandwidth for "free" downloads of the products they work to
produce.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 16 May 2001 07:41:08 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2760874,00.html
>
> Explains it in detail. What was actually being tested was a pre-release,
and
> not the full version. Wait until the it is actually released in October
before
> you give your so-called expert opinion. By that time, Linux version 2.4.5
or
> 2.4.6 will be already released and provide even better performance.
A pre-release version of DB2...
And perhaps by then the new results using Datacenter SP2 and SQL2K SP1 will
be released, all nicely tuned up and running on similar quantities of
clustered servers/CPUs. You don't really expect that upgrading the kernel by
a .0.1 release, the kernel not the DB, to make up for a difference of double
the CPUs do you? And clustering?
I welcome new results from both parties. Definately. As the article said:
Jeff Ressler, lead product manager for Microsoft's SQL Server team said it
was "interesting to finally see someone else finally playing in the 100GB
category, which we have dominated with no competition for some time."
MS hasn't bother to post a better result since it owned the category. Why
keep besting your own score? Now they have a reason... expect an entry from
Compaq or Unisys shortly... (p.s., SP2 improves performance, it's been
noted).
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 16 May 2001 07:43:12 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dave Martel wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 May 2001 19:21:22 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2760874,00.html
> > >
> > >Explains it in detail. What was actually being tested was a
pre-release, and
> > >not the full version. Wait until the it is actually released in October
before
> > >you give your so-called expert opinion. By that time, Linux version
2.4.5 or
> > >2.4.6 will be already released and provide even better performance.
> > >
> >
> > So now it's Microsoft's turn to try to hit a moving target?
>
> Now its time to see what Microsoft will do. If a beta runs at around 3/4
to 1/2
> the speed of optimised code, a full version, fully optimised version would
be a
> site to behold
Really?? 3/4 to 1/2 for a beta?
Then I guess that means the copy of XP I've been playing with which is in
beta 2 format (not even RC format like the DB2 used in this test) has been
posting equal or better benchmark results to released W2K will be even
faster yet? OH MAN!
>, thus again proving to the big-wiggs that Linux is a viable
> solution, and whats even better is that it is cheap, and their
shareholders will
> be happy to know that they have saved a few million by moving to Linux.
Saved a few million? Which results did YOU read? The ones I read show the
cost for the linux solution being nearly a million dollars while the cost
for the W2K solution was only a quarter that much. 1/4th.
So - if you want better performance, less heat, less maintenence (single vs
cluster of servers), and save a bundle of money - go MS.
------------------------------
From: Phill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:49:04 +0100
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes!!!!!! And boy is that a VERY important point for people to think
about!
They have now made a contribution which is being continued. It is just a
shame that they were not around long enough to make money from their
services.
Also another project that I am VERY sad to see go is
http://www.sourcexchange.com/
I feel that this is a very good idea that stopped because of timing
rather than because of the idea. I hope that similar projects get
started and they find better fortunes.
Does anyone happen to have ideas of how opensource hackers can get
direct payment for their efforts? There seems to be many problems in
putting a fair payment model together in a large project with multiple
authors while making payment cost effective ( transaction costs
considered ). The current routes seem to be:
a) single author direct donation
b) multiple author direct donation to a "foundation" that provides
resources to hackers
c) selling support/packaged product
d) writing technical books
e) contracting for specific improvements required by companies
f) selling services based around the project
g) others ???
I'd like to see ultimately a DIRECT payment model. Somehow, can we model
the closed source payment model without the restrictions ? For example,
if say a deal could be worked out with companies such as PayPal, authors
that contribute can accumulate some return from end users who would like
to provide incentives for improvement. I don't think that this is very
workable, but you get the idea. Also like sourceexchange, can a system
be set up so that groups of clients could provide payment for the
addition of specific features to a project ? Maybe if the community
could resolve the issue of how hackers can produce free code and still
get a good income directly, this would certainly encourage a slew of
good talented people to contribute more than they are doing. Hacker
mindshare is one of the things opensource should win. We should be aware
that not all hackers know and love Linux, so the question would become
how can we attract them away from their visual studio existence ? How
can we make them do it with incentive that is more than for the love of
hacking ?
------------------------------
From: Phill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:52:36 +0100
Anonymous wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > Its obvious why they shutdown... capital venture is drying up!
>
> What I find odd about the shutdown
> is that it doesn't take much money to
> support a group of 7 programmers,
> only about a $1 million per year.
> And you only have to pay the star
> programmer an amount of $100,000 per
> year, the rest can get by on much
> less of an income, leaving extra money
> for overhead.
>
> Overhead shouldn't be much
> money since you don't need office space
> but can do everything over the Internet.
> About the only capital expense would be
> broadband to the home, but most serious
> software engineers already have that already.
You should examine the figures again. There may be only a few
programmers, but there were other non-technical people. Business
requires marketing/admin/finance people. There is no point in producing
a product if you can't sell it or it's services. This was a business.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:53:39 +0100
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes!!!!!! And boy is that a VERY important point for people to think
about!
They have now made a contribution which is being continued. It is just a
shame that they were not around long enough to make money from their
services.
Also another project that I am VERY sad to see go is
http://www.sourcexchange.com/
I feel that this is a very good idea that stopped because of timing
rather than because of the idea. I hope that similar projects get
started and they find better fortunes.
Does anyone happen to have ideas of how opensource hackers can get
direct payment for their efforts? There seems to be many problems in
putting a fair payment model together in a large project with multiple
authors while making payment cost effective ( transaction costs
considered ). The current routes seem to be:
a) single author direct donation
b) multiple author direct donation to a "foundation" that provides
resources to hackers
c) selling support/packaged product
d) writing technical books
e) contracting for specific improvements required by companies
f) selling services based around the project
g) others ???
I'd like to see ultimately a DIRECT payment model. Somehow, can we model
the closed source payment model without the restrictions ? For example,
if say a deal could be worked out with companies such as PayPal, authors
that contribute can accumulate some return from end users who would like
to provide incentives for improvement. I don't think that this is very
workable, but you get the idea. Also like sourceexchange, can a system
be set up so that groups of clients could provide payment for the
addition of specific features to a project ? Maybe if the community
could resolve the issue of how hackers can produce free code and still
get a good income directly, this would certainly encourage a slew of
good talented people to contribute more than they are doing. Hacker
mindshare is one of the things opensource should win. We should be aware
that not all hackers know and love Linux, so the question would become
how can we attract them away from their visual studio existence ? How
can we make them do it with incentive that is more than for the love of
hacking ?
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:56:11 +0100
"~¿~" wrote:
> And I beg to differ as to whether forking the entire development of a
> product is 'not a concern'
Where is the fork ?
> Because it's open source? Is that really some sort of guaranteed panacea?
> I think someone is putting something in this open source that should require
> a prescription!
Check out the Nautilus mailing list and see for yourself.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 16 May 2001 07:54:07 -0500
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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
>
> Who cares? I don't trust benchmark results anyways, and especially if
> I'm not personally involved in them. The only thing that matters is
> that: Linux is open source. Linux will get better. There's a variety
> of operating systems out there that can outperform each other at certain
> tasks, yet are strikingly similar in other areas. It's all about using
> the best OS for the task. Hell, I've seen moronic executives order that
> their company use NT 4.0, just because they saw the hype and fell for
> it. But I trust the security of Linux and unix systems, and it's much
> easier to set up scripting on a unix box. So, even if Win 2K can
> outperform at pumping out certain types of data, you have to look at
> other factors in your decision. There are other things to consider than
> how well an OS can pump out packets, like how stable the NIC works with
> the server. Certain OS releases don't like certain NIC's, depending on
> the driver issues.
>
> For one, I think that unix and Linux are easier to configure for a
> server. It's much simpler to add users and secure down a Linux box than
> it is Win 2000. Also, there's the uptime factor. Factor in what type
> of HW you have, and what type of server task you want to do, and you
> might find one OS better suited than the other at certain things.
>
> Yes, I do believe Win 2000 can outperform Linux at certain tasks. But,
> it depends on how you can deal with what you have, not necessarily with
> what you've got. IOW, it ain't what you've got, it's the way that you
> use it. I've seen Linux boxes that were not very optimally configured
> for the task at hand, but yet other admins were able to make better use
> of a Win 2000 box, because they were more fully aware of its strengths
> and limitations, and what it can do.
>
> Personally, I could care less about benchmarks. If you show me a
> benchmark, I'd tell you to stick up your you know where, because I know
> what kinds of software/HW I'm dealing with, and if I can configure the
> thing to do what I want to do with it or not. I'm a Linux and unix
> advocate, and I try to make the best use out of HW running Linux. If
> Linux couldn't cut it, though, I wouldn't necessarily recommend running
> Win 2000 by default, because there's so many other capable server OS's,
> like FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. Win 2000 would be at the bottom of my list,
> simply because I advocate unix-based systems. But if all else failed, I
> would use Win 2000. But the likelihood of that happening isn't too
> great, because, well, there's so many other OSes that I know I could get
> to work, because I know the limitations of those OSes.
So, if I read your right:
No matter what, in every case, you prefer Unix simply because it's not
Windows 2000. You would rather use a unix solution every time rather than
Windows 2000 because you know the limitations of various Unix OSes.
If an independent test shows some result you ignore it.
The only thing that matters to you is that Linux is Open source. i.e., Open
Source=Better than everything else. Simply by the virtue of the fact that
you have the code in your hands means that it's better than anything else.
Hmm... and if you had the code to Windows in your hands, just suppose, would
that make it better than everything else and tied with other open source
OSes? Beginning to see some holes here Donn...
You are biased towards what you know and dislike what you don't. OK, I can
understand that. But don't you think you are being unfair? how would you
know scripting is easier on unix than Windows if you've never done it,
really tried it seriously. I find scripting on windows to be effortless but
don't often need it cause it's just as easy to fire up VB and write a quick
app there as it is to use vbscript in wsh.
It's flat out not easier to add users in linux, W2K has a command line
version for practically everything you would want to admin and you can add
users from the cmd line too, as easily as any other OS. W2K uptime is rock
solid. Anyone tells you different is lying. W2K is not NT and definately not
W9x. None of those uptime stories applies. Please don't reduce credibility
by trying to assail W2K uptime, cause it just won't fly with EVERYONE using
it.
Allow me to quote back some things, with a word swap, to see how weak they
are:
>I've seen W2K boxes that were not very optimally configured
> for the task at hand, but yet other admins were able to make better use
> of a linux box, because they were more fully aware of its strengths
> and limitations, and what it can do.
>Hell, I've seen moronic executives order that
> their company use Linux, just because they saw the hype and fell for
> it.
>Certain OS releases don't like certain NIC's, depending on
> the driver issues.
Oops, I didn't have to change that last one - cause it's true for EVERY OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
