Linux-Advocacy Digest #549, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Matthew Gardiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:28:34 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Cheaper than SGI hardware, and cheaper than IBM database software, that
is.
> In both systems, the OS is a trivial part of the cost, Linux being about
> 0.03% of the cost of the system, and Win 2K Advanced Server being about
> 0.85% of the cost of the system.
"the OS is a trivial part of the cost"
Funny, Microsoft have been saying it for years.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:49:01 +0200
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Ayende,
>
> > I don't understand Linux attitude toward the kernel modules.
> > Linux users constantly complain about not having drivers, but they also
> give
> > the drivers company no *choice* in the matter, because they would've to
> > support a driver for every change in the interface.
> > Any idea why Linux doesn't have a unified driver model?
> > Most other OS has, AFAIK.
>
> 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.
In other words, they turn their back to people who want to develop drivers
for Linux.
What would happen if they tried to do this to Linux's API?
Who would develop to Linux then?
You see my point?
------------------------------
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: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:49:28 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 15 May 2001 12:47:02 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Microsoft's share of the server market has outgrown upstart Linux,
leaping
> > from 38 percent of the market last year to 41 percent this year.
>
> Dollars or installations?
Installations.
In dollars linux is like < 1%
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: 16 May 2001 07:55:02 -0500
truth hurts sometimes... I'm sorry ..
"Badgerjh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dt2og$bpj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I feel a deep pain for you, may the force be with you........
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3b01f7e2$0$82810$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Dear Charlie
> > >
> > > Microsoft got DoD C2 Security for Windows NT by having it
> > > tested *without*any*network*connections*. Yes, that's right
> > > it's C2 certified, but only if it's not connected to anything!
> >
> > That's old news related to NT 3.51 - NT4 received C2 WITH neworking.
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps NT is *really* secure if it isn't actually running!!!!
> >
> > as is any OS I guess eh? har har.
> >
> > >
> > > That was years ago, and things certainly haven't got any more
> > > secure. Talk about deletions!
> >
> > but they have - you just haven't bothered to check.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[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: 16 May 2001 07:55:05 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 15 May 2001 12:47:02 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Microsoft's share of the server market has outgrown upstart Linux,
leaping
> > from 38 percent of the market last year to 41 percent this year.
>
> Dollars or installations?
Perhaps both - Jealous?
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: 16 May 2001 07:59:10 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Interconnect wrote:
>
> > [HUGE SNIP]
> > > This is coming from a person who plays games on the server, ROFL!
> > >
> > > Matthew Gardiner
> >
> > What do you expect from a dedicated Windows *professional* :D
>
> Of course. Chad Myers is the sort of idiot who would user a server as a
> workstation as well. On several occasions that was he said thats what
> he also used the server for.
This cracks me up coming from the linvocates who KEEP talking about linux
being free and saving money is so important...
Lets park a file/print share server in the closet and let it's CPU and Mem
usage stay idle for years just cause a server is a server and a workstation
is where you run things, never the two shall meet. Sheesh... while I don't
see myself running many games on a server I #1) have no fear of doing it
cause, it's a computer, it's there to do what you want it to when you want
it to, it shouldn't be single tasked. #2) would do it just to piss off the
server elitists who'd cringe at the idea and #3) cause sometimes having a 0
ping kicks ass! <smile>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:57:37 +0200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Well, at least you didn't say Xerophobia, fear of being dry, or Xylophobia,
fear of woods.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: 16 May 2001 08:05:01 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What? Are we saying that Microsoft doesn't use .dll's
> in IIS? Are we saying they didn't give out instructions
> to delete a certain .dll to close an illegal backdoor
> they put in every IIS server in the universe?
There is no illegal backdoor in IIS. And, see thirdly for something that
invalidates your entire thread.
>
> Secondly, how do you not use something anymore when it's
> on the CD which install the fucking system Chad?
> Do you just have to remember to delete it every time
> your server craps out and you need to reinstall?
See thirdly
>
> Thirdly, why is Microsoft shipping an OS with an illegal
> .dll which allows illegal entry into your corporation
> in the first place?
The DLL you refer to does not contain a backdoor, only a "poorly-worded"
string which does NOTHING to violate security in any way shape or form. AND
this DLL is NOT included with the OS. It's NOT on the OS CD, it's NOT part
of IIS. It's ONLY added to your server if you manually install the Front
Page 98 server extentions (not FP97, and not FP98a or anything newer).
>
> Fourthly, since MS has given instructions to delete this
> .dll to close the security breach, what other function
> did it have to support IIS? If you took a car engine
> and just arbitrarily threw away a piston it would
> hurt the cars performance and or usability?
The DLL you refer to is not used to support IIS. It extends some minor
functionality of IIS - but has long since been obsolete and no longer used
which is why it means nothing to simply delete the file if the letters in
that "offensive" string, um, offend you. Cause being offended by those
letters is the worse they can do for you. Reminder; no backdoor according to
every security expert who's reviewed it including the guy that found the
string in the first place.
Starting to get it (I'll wager not)?
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 16 May 2001 08:11:08 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 5 9's is not theoretical. There are servers left and right achieving
5
> > 9's
> > > > on multiple OSes.
> > >
> > > If it is achievable on multiple OS's, then how come people use Windows
> > 2000 for
> > > their servers?
> >
> > cause it works great? cause they want to?
> >
> > >hmm, do I here ANOTHER small-medium NZ business move to a Linux
> > > solution?
> >
> > I don't know - do you?
> >
> > >oh, yes did, using a Cobalt Qube with Linux, and admin tasks
> > > completed via web browser. Sold many of them, not one return. Maybe
you
> > should
> > > start living in reality where cash is precious, and no one likes to
waste
> > it
> > > on substandard products such as Windows 2000 Server.
> >
> > 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!
That's Xenophobic and doesn't apply. Stupid. I've travelled to most of
Europe, visited Canada, Mexico and South America. I hope to visit Australia
some day.
Just because someone/anyone cannot afford something, doesn't make that
something bad - get it now?
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 16 May 2001 08:11:09 -0500
"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:h4nM6.21969$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue 15 May 2001 10:48, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> Xenaphobia = Fear of leather-clad warrior princesses.
>
THAT was funny!! :)
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 16 May 2001 08:14:07 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chronos Tachyon wrote:
> > 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.
Spell checker here in Outlook express suggested xenophobia for xenaphobia -
time to upgrade your agent.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 16 May 2001 08:16:11 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Um, my calculator says that a 99.999% uptime leaves 5.26 MINUTES
> > > > > > downtime per year - not 8 hours. Did you perhaps calculate for
> > 99.9%
> > > > > > uptime?
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > 365days * 24hours = 8760 hours
> > > > > 0.001(difference between 100 and 99.999) * 8760 hours = 8.76
hours.
> > > >
> > > > You Do realize that 5 9s of reliablity is the best that practically
all
> > > > vendors claim, even unix ones?
> > > Unlike Microsoft, most UNIX vendors don't over estimate uptime, hence,
> > > for the UNIX world, it is rather conservative. However, Microsoft
wants
> > > market share, they will even lie to try to get people to convert.
> >
> > 5 9s is conservative?
> >
> > Show me any proof of such a rediculous claim. Show me ANY unix vendor
> > promising 6 9s of uptime. ANY OS/ANY hardware. Show me.
>
> No UNIX vendor needs to prove it, because most admins know already what
UNIX
> can and can't do.
Ooooh, I see... so, proof is for heritics. We unix GODs have no need for
proof - our disciples rely on faith and the passed down words of mainframe
monks from history passed...
Silly me for asking that someone prove something they claim - what was I
thinking...
Of course, we can borrow your logic and apply it to w2k too; W2K admins
already know that W2K is reliable. We have no need to measure the length of
our uptimes against others - we leave that for the penis envy crowd.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 16 May 2001 13:16:25 GMT
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> 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
> I see now. That was one argument I got into with another UNIX admin
> type...
> He didn't like the way Linux has one partition for everything to
> installed in...
> I called it a myth and found a web site that mentions this... I didn't
> really see the reasons for having the core programs in one slice and
> then applications in another slice and then users in another slice... it
> cuts down on efficient disk useage. That seemed to smoke him more than
> anything else and started ranting about security, which I mentioned that
> slices were a carry over from the days of yore of small hard drives.
> He spun out of control after that. :-))
Hahahaa..
Just to set the record straight:
Ive been using linux as a main workstation operating system at home for about
six years; Ive been using it in a professional capacity for about 3. I like it
alot.
But there are some applications for which more robust UNIX flavored operating
systems are superior. For example, I *know* that AIX running an enormous DB2
clustered array works phenominally well; im not willing to throw linux at that
kind of thing in a 'mission critical' environment until far more test scores
are in...
There are good reasons to keep things "sliced up", just as there are good reasons
to put everything on one partition---it depends on the application. The netcool
logging machine ill be running in a few days is an e4500 running solaris 8. All
its logs are (justifiably) in /var. Since it collects around 1 gig of logs per
day, its handy to isolate /var on its own slice, just in case. I dont want
everything dying just because logs become unweildy.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 16 May 2001 08:18:10 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >>
> > 5 9s is conservative?
> >
> > Show me any proof of such a rediculous claim. Show me ANY unix vendor
> > promising 6 9s of uptime. ANY OS/ANY hardware. Show me.
>
> Here's a little one from Novell:
>
> http://www.techshows.com/Calgary/novell_technologies_seminar.htm
I meant "ANY UNIX/ANY hardware" but... so, it takes Novell to be the 6 9s
king and requires a cluster.
A Windows cluster can do this as well (and, hell, even a unix cluster). I'm
talking single machines.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 16 May 2001 08:20:12 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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
> > >
> > > More like $3000, moron.
> > >
> >
> > Evidently, Aaron Kookis has never taken a "thermodynamic course."
>
> University, room filled with 24 computers, I turned off the AC (Air
> Conditioning), came back and the room was quite warm. How can that be so
> Jan?
matt - you are late to the tread and missed the point.
however, gee, you have to ask - got 24 heat producing devices with no
cooling and when you come back it's warm? Gosh ! How could THAT happen!?
That does not address the difference between how warm it is when there are 8
processors versus 12 processors in a single box.
then again, visit any colocation center, examine their cooling capacity.
their cooling costs are in 5 digits a month - do you really think a few
bucks more anyone would notice?
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 01:22:39 +1200
"~¿~" wrote:
> "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?
READ THE FUCKING BLOODY FUCKIING MESSAGE YOU FUCKING DICK HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I pointed out that, and I quote: "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." IF YOU CAN'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT
(IN ECONOMIC TERMS), THEN YOU MUST HAVE BIG FUCKING ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE
RESOLVED.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 01:26:45 +1200
> > 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!
Depends how much debugging code is in it. Beta 1 was shyte, beta two has
improved in speed.
>
>
> >, 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.
Remember the excuse you used a couple of posts back saying that Windows 2000
licenses, regarding you local server loaded with Windows vs. having it loaded
with a *NIX or *BSD, were a one off cost, well, I'll apply that principle here,
the server is only a one off payment.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 16 May 2001 08:28:12 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > All admin can be done through a browser, or if you are using Solaris on
the
> > client, use the special Java based admin program. Whats so hard about
that?
> > nothing. Aaron, also consider that Jan is a mear office clerk who uses
Word and
> > Windows, and because she can install Windows from scratch that somehow
makes her
> > an admin.
>
> I thought Jan Johanson was a man <grin>:
>
> http://www.kretsloop.se/ftg/ecomitech/janj-e.html
hardly! Jan not Jon.
(all W2K admin can be done through a browser too)
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 01:29:25 +1200
> This cracks me up coming from the linvocates who KEEP talking about linux
> being free and saving money is so important...
>
> Lets park a file/print share server in the closet and let it's CPU and Mem
> usage stay idle for years just cause a server is a server and a workstation
> is where you run things, never the two shall meet. Sheesh... while I don't
> see myself running many games on a server I #1) have no fear of doing it
> cause, it's a computer, it's there to do what you want it to when you want
> it to, it shouldn't be single tasked. #2) would do it just to piss off the
> server elitists who'd cringe at the idea and #3) cause sometimes having a 0
> ping kicks ass! <smile>
Thanks, now I know why so many dot-con companys failed because people like you
WEREN'T DOING ANY FUCKING WORK!
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:30:17 GMT
>I love W2k and I don't care much for Linux ( I don't think it begins to
>compare ) ...
I'm kinda in the same boat. I use Win98 currently, and on my home
computer I do have it running pretty stable. I have actually gone
months without rebooting. AT work though, with software my boss makes
me use (like Norton crap) it crashes every other day.
>BUT
>
>I really do resent MS for this product activation thing with XP. It is a
>pain in the ass and why can't I put windows on two machines that only I use
>at home ??
This was the cause of my anger as well. The more I read about XP and
other MS plans in the future to screw the consumers, the more I resent
their actions.
>This is bullshit on MS' part and they are going to alienate their most
>ardent supporters.
>
>Hmmmm... maybe I will start to use Linux someday after...
Hey, you too can me MS Free! ;)
________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geocities.com/sugapablo
(To email me, remove "Sugapablo-" from my email address)
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 01:32:21 +1200
> 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)
This is "septic tank"* in action everyone, why aren't I surprised with such a
wonderful education system available in the US.
Matthew Gardiner
* Septic Tank is a cockney term for a Yank, however, in NZ and Australia, a
Yank is known as a wank, same thing ;)
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 01:34:36 +1200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > Only because many web pages are designed to be "best viewed with IE".
> > Imagine one day they turn to say "This page is best viewed with Adobe
> > Acrobat. Please download the free Acrobat Reader <here>.". Now,
> > would Windows still seem better? Huh? And you could replace that
> > with Ghostscript/ghostview. Haha... :P
>
> Windows has font anti-aliasing, why doesn't any Linux distro have that
> by default?
>
> Agreed, there are a lot of pages out there that need IE, but a lot of
> them work reasonably well with Konqueror (KDE 2.1). I say reasonably as
> there are always a few that don't.
I'm running SuSE Linux 7.1 and I have anti alias fonts. All my netscape
fonts are displayed correctly, so whats your point? btw, what sort of
video card do you have?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
