Linux-Advocacy Digest #570, Volume #34 Thu, 17 May 01 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Karel Jansens)
Re: Mercury (was: No More Linux!) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x.... ("C. Newport")
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS ("billwg")
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS (Ian Davey)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Adam Warner")
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: ("Flacco")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 17 May 2001 09:25:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> 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.
Not drivers.
Closed-source "drivers," which as almost anyone who uses them knows
don't work very well, and which detract from the security, stability,
and freedom of the entire OS. (Even Windows, which is not very secure
or stable to begin with.)
If it were up to me, there would be no closed-source drivers for
Linux, because the GPL on the kernel would be strictly enforced.
Hardware "vendors" would release specs for their devices, and then we
could write our own drivers easily enough. That is what used to be
the case before the relatively recent plague of Windows-only
"hardware."
In the worst case we'd lose support for about 5-10% of the devices
that Linux users actually use. In the more realistic case, the
vendors, faced with the choice of either releasing specs or losing all
present and future Linux business, would do the right thing and release
the specs. Ideally they would release free drivers, but we are more
than willing to write drivers ourselves, if they release specs so that
we can.
: What would happen if they tried to do this to Linux's API?
: Who would develop to Linux then?
Umm . . . .
People shouldn't be developing for Linux in the first place.
They should be writing portable code, which will then run on Linux,
but also on the *BSDs, on legacy UNIX, possibly on NT if necessary,
etc.
Most of what people generally consider to be "Linux" software -
Apache, Samba, KDE, Gnome, the GIMP, MySQL, PHP, etc. - is portable
and will run on lots of different platforms.
: You see my point?
Honestly, no. If you have a point, I sure don't see it.
Your complaint seems to be that Linux doesn't bend over backwards to
accommodate the "needs" of proprietary software and hardware
"vendors."
Linux is a free OS, built by and primarily for free people, who value
freedom for its own sake, and not only for the obvious benefits that
it brings.
You are welcome to use Linux and other free software if you want to.
But don't run around complaining that we won't make it less free in
order to accommodate you.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 18:51:18 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
>
When you write "months without rebooting", does that mean that your Windows
98 pc stays powered on continuously, or do you occasionally shut it down
voluntarily? And if so, how often do you perform these "maintainance
reboots"?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb - No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!"
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Mercury (was: No More Linux!)
Date: 17 May 2001 06:37:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Also, I don't know if I should blame Mercury or Pegasus for the
>> > following case, but I suspect the former. User A sends a mail to user B
>> > (who uses Pegasus as a client and a Mercury server). B "bounces" the
>> > mail to user C. User C cannot see this in the MAIL FROM envelope header.
>> > The reverse path is still set to user A. This is clearly incorrect and
>> > IMHO in violation of rfc821 (now 2821).
>> I'll check this out. Seems like I remember seeing something about this on
>> the pmail site or one of the pmail newsgroups.
>
>I couldn't find where I saw this, but here's what happens on our system when
>A sends to B, B forwards to C. (A,B and C are local Netware users).
>
>C sees that the msg was from A, resent by B to C. If C clicks the reply
>button, the to address is to A. I don't know whether this violates the rfc
>or not. In our case Mercury has nothing to do with it. Local mail is handled
>entirely by Pegasus.
No, this is perfectly valid, because you talk about the "From:" header
(note the colon). This header is specified in rfc2822 and is part from
the mail data on an SMTP level. It *should* be left unchanged when you
resend the message.
What I am talking about is the "return path" header, which is part of
the SMTP envelope. This is the address that the originating Mail
Transfer Agent passes to the receiving MTA with the "MAIL FROM" SMTP
command. This is the address that the mailer daemon should use for e.g.
rejection messages, and this should point to the resending user, not the
original. So I'm still not sure it's really a Pegasus problem, but I
think it is. How else should Mercury know the return address if not told
by Pegasus...
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the
rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ...
-- F. H. Wales (1936)
------------------------------
From: "C. Newport" <[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: Thu, 17 May 2001 11:17:14 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rich Teer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, C. Newport wrote:
>
> > For Interesting Values Of
>
> I see! (Sound of penny dropping)
>
> > Which around here includes SLC (Yuk), SS1 .... up to SB1000 (lekker).
> > The SB1000 seems to compile things almost as fast as the fully
> > loaded E420.
>
> That's interesting; I'd expect a half decently set up SB 1000 to eat
> an E420 for lunch, CPU-speed wise. The E420 has four processors, but
> they're 450 MHz US II, whereas the SB 1000 can have two 750 MHz US III
> processors...
For big compiles the CPU is less relevant than disk i/o, especially
in /tmp. Stuffing in 4Gb of core solves the tmpfs problem, and
a few T3 arrays make a serious impression on disk i/o.
OTOH, on some of the crap around here you could type make and book
a nice vacation .....
--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm
not sure about the universe. [Albert Einstein].
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:25:01 GMT
"Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <snip> ... Hardly a problem. ... <snip>
>From a developer's point of view, isn't the problem that an application has
to use different source code to adapt to each GUI that may be used by a
potential customer or else require the customer to change GUIs to adapt to
the application? I'm not familiar with the Linux and Unix GUIs, but it
would seem that there must be some differences in the API syntax to support
the different capabilities of each. An application couldn't take advantage
of the unique features of any one without creating a problem with the
others.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 08:40:23 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> 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?
I'm running SuSE 7.1 - it doesn't do anti aliased fonts by default. I
seem to remember there were several steps involved. My video card is a
Voodoo 5500 which runs pretty slowly on Linux.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 08:42:15 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> The real problem here is that most users are complete morons. They never
> understood DOS, Windows or Linux. Sure they seemed to achieve something
> with Windows but when it went wrong, they didn't have a clue and, as
> someone who worked on a help desk for some years, I got sick and tired
> of dealing with these cretins who shouldn't have been allowed anywhere
> near a PC.
> Like women drivers who don't know how to change a wheel, the technology
> is beyond them and they should leave it to the big boys who really
> understand it. Sorry guys - you are too stupid to have a computer.
>
> -----
>
> Doesn't the above just summarise the problem with the populous.
Doesn't the above summarise your problems? Your bias? Your sexism?
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 08:48:36 +0100
In article <9dtn0q$93u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I'm bored of all these benchmarks, since benchmarks are just marks and
> meaningless out of context. So Win2K served up an extra transcation per
> second or Linux manages an extra web page per second? So what?
Because that's what everyone wants?
> To get a better idea, you need to look at the real world.
Now, let's see what you consider the "real world"...
> If you look in the real world, you see Linux having several spots in the
> top 100 fastest supercomputers. If Win2K/NT is so great and so scalable
> and gives such a great price/performance ratio, then why is there not a
> *single* Windows cluster in the top 100 supercomputers list?
Ah, I can go into my local PC world and buy one of these supercomputers
can I? It's an off the shelf easily affordable machine, is that so?
No!
> The reason is simple: Linux scales better, is more efficient and gives a
> much better price/performance *in the real world*.
Well I knew that.
Your definition of "real world" is fascinating. Out here in the _real_
real world, it's Windows that is dominating, not Linux.
> Linux wins, again.
In one small percentage of the whole market. Not enough.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:38:44 GMT
>When you write "months without rebooting", does that mean that your Windows
>98 pc stays powered on continuously, or do you occasionally shut it down
>voluntarily? And if so, how often do you perform these "maintainance
>reboots"?
Yes, it does mean that I leave it one continuously. In fact, the only
time I really have to reboot anymore is right before I burn a CD on my
new CD-RW so the buffer doesn't time out. But I think it's because my
comp is so frickin so moreso than the operating system. (200mHz, 64
MB RAM, parralel port to CD-RW). I wish I could afford a better
machine, but I simply can't.
________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geocities.com/sugapablo
(To email me, remove "Sugapablo-" from my email address)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:52:03 GMT
In article <1GNM6.233997$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "billwg"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From a developer's point of view, isn't the problem that an application has
>to use different source code to adapt to each GUI that may be used by a
>potential customer or else require the customer to change GUIs to adapt to
>the application? I'm not familiar with the Linux and Unix GUIs, but it
>would seem that there must be some differences in the API syntax to support
>the different capabilities of each. An application couldn't take advantage
>of the unique features of any one without creating a problem with the
>others.
Nope, that's not how it works at all. Each application uses a GUI toolkit, and
will require the libraries for that toolkit. Provided you have the required
libraries you can run any application under any window manager. I've started
using KDE2.02 now, but still occasionally use BlackBox (a very minimal and
fast window manager) and all Linux applications will run under either.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 23:12:23 +1200
Hi Les Mikesell,
> Is a company not entitled to use trade secrets to make their combination
> of hardware and driver the best among the competition? Or third party
> components with existing non-disclosure restrictions?
Yes they are. The company will just have to release new drivers if the
binary-only drivers stop working in a later kernel release. The company
shouldn't expect that all future kernel development should revolve around
them in order that their drivers are not broken.
However as a user I am entitled to support those hardware manufacturers that
provide the source to their drivers. Also, given that binary-only drivers
can potentially contain hidden and undesirable functionality, they will be
at a competitive disadvantage to stable open drivers (in the eyes of some
security conscious users).
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: 17 May 2001 11:27:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 17 May 2001 02:33:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Michael Vester wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >
>> > "Doug Ransom (usenet)" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > But is is soooo useful than linux is basicaly obsolete.
>> > >
>> > > Linux is obsolete without a competetive run time object model to the common
>> > > language runtime.
>> >
>> > Buzzwords, Buzzwords, and not a coherent thought to be found.
>> >
>> > Object-oriented programming is more hype than useful.
>> >
>> > >
>>
>> I even looked up the definitions of the words that made up that sentence.
>> It still did not make any sense. Glad to see that others think it is
>> complete nonsense too. I agree with your statement about object
>> orientated programming. Just a fancy way to pass parameters. Any language
>> can be object orientated.
>
>I'll tell you the OLDEST object oriented language
>
>/bin/sh
>
>
>Since it is meant to work within the context of the Unix filesystem
>and the Unix Filesystem is actually an object environment (data directed
>to any type of file (regular file, device file, named pipe, etc.)
>automagically "knows how to handle it"...then all shell scripts are,
>by definition, object-oriented code.
Aaron, please limit yourself to bigotry and insults, since trying to
sound technical makes your messages involuntarily hilarious.
Or perhaps you can show polymorphism, inheritance and encapsulation
in shell scripts.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 11:40:04 GMT
On Thu, 17 May 2001 10:35:14 +0200, fk10 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I was always a RedHat fan. Since 5.0 I sticked with RedHat and I always
|thought the other distro's will be just the same.
|
|Well, I finally took a deap breath and installed Mandrake 8.
|
|W O W ! ! !
|
|No fine tuning the X server, no playing with the sound configuration, no
|need to read pages on pages of ppp howto's - everything works out of the
|box.
|
|Not even Windows is this easy!
|
|My previous box was compromised, so this time I made sure security was top
|on my priority list. Nice feature of Mandrake to give three levels of
|security before you install the beast. I naturally selected PARANOID, and I
|suddenly wish RedHat had this option...
Actually, RedHat 7.1 *does* have this option.
I agree that Mandrake 8.0 does do a better job on sound, and probably
other things, but I havn't played with it enough to see all the good
points yet.
|Any way, everything works, and after about three days now I have no
|complaints.
|
|For those whining about headers, I'm writing this message from a VMWare
|session running Win 95. I use a web service (www.news2web.com) at this
|stage.
|
|I think I will stick to Mandrake 8 for a while. The desktop environment
|seems to be lightyears ahead of anything from the competition (distro's and
|other OS's included), and I'm just so impressed, I can't sleep at night.
|
|Anyway, nice chatting to you all again. See you!
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 11:41:36 GMT
> Doesn't the above just summarise the problem with the populous.
No, it's another example of the kind of contempt for end-users that will
keep Linux from making a dent in the desktop market.
Christ. Talk about own worst enemy.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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 11:51:36 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Sure. IIS wasn't where the bug was, though. The bug was in the Front Page
> extensions, which are maintained by the FrontPage team. Basically, it's an
> add-on.
Here's something that's just as good as a back door:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-026.asp
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS01-026
Superfluous Decoding Operation Could Allow Command Execution via IIS
Originally posted: May 14, 2001
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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 11:54:18 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > Nothing like having Jon, Chad and Eric in the same ng.... like watching
> > > the three stooges in action!
> > > --
> > > V
> >
> > They belong to the: Windows And Network Klub ---> or WANK for short :)
>
> <sigh>
>
> You guys are completely devoid of any logic or reason. You present no
> facts and only fling the personal insults.
>
> Completely clueless...
>
> *pl0nk*
Chad, you invite these insults.
By the way, I feel that only babies killfile people.
Babies that dish it out, but cannot take equal measure
thrown back in their faces.
Chris
--
Free the Mind!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 11:58:35 GMT
In article <_tGM6.323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>> If no one uses it, why did M$ keep distributing it???
>
>That's a good question. I've oft wondered that myself.
>
>-c
>
>
HUMM! A deep thought question!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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 13:59:33 +0100
> 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.
There's nothing too wrong with using what you best know: after all you
can probably do better with an inferior system that you know very well,
compared to a better ony you're not familiar (note: I'm not calling UNIX
inferior).
> If an independent test shows some result you ignore it.
Bench marks aren't a good measure or anything except the ability to do a
benchmark test. What's the use of something that is 1.5x as fast, but
crashes nightly (which doesn't show up in a benchmark).
> 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.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that this model works extermely well.
> 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...
If Win2K was GPL'd or BSD'd, it would be much better in any ways.
> You are biased towards what you know and dislike what you don't. OK, I
> can understand that.
Hey, who isn't? After all, you are too.
> 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.
Doesn't VB cost money? Also, VB is one language only. Every language has
strengths and weaknesses and no one language is best at everything. UNIX
bydefault comes with quite a few. A decent modern installation of Linux
comes with loads. I can think of many taskls where VB would be totally
inferior to AWK and many tasks where the oppersite would be true. For
really good scripting a good choice is needed.
> 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.
OK, so they're both incredibly easy, using a single line command.
> W2K uptime
> is rock solid.
riiiiiiight.
> Anyone tells you different is lying.
Hey EVERYBODY! J[ao]n says MS themselves are Lying!
120 Days (from MS themselves) *with* a nightly reboot is not solid by
anyones stretch of the imagination. And MS claimed that. Guess thay are
lying then.
> 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.
Win2K can never be the most stable platform around simply because of the
shoddiness of peecee hardware (even the big high quality boxes). It will
be a long time before MS+selected vendor can guarntee an uptime of 35
years. Do you seriously think that in 8 years we will see Win2K servers
with uptimes of 8 years?
No we won't, coz PC hardware is poor. S/390's can manage with hot
upgrades. 8 years, no downtime, no origioal components (except the
case). Until Win2K can have real stability like that, don't claim it is
rock solid, because it won't fly with anyone.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 08:00:13 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Aaron, please limit yourself to bigotry and insults, since trying to
> sound technical makes your messages involuntarily hilarious.
>
> Or perhaps you can show polymorphism, inheritance and encapsulation
> in shell scripts.
I know that Simula and Smalltalk predate C++, but I don't know if they
were the original OO languages.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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 12:02:47 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "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.
I should amend that to say that the "cost" I'm talking about
doesn't include the labor of keeping the system up to
specs with patches, hotfixes, and service packs.
However, even ignoring that issue, for your average consumer,
the OS is not a trivial cost. Microsoft has managed to
hide the cost in the system cost, that's all.
Even when Microsoft software is relatively inexpensive,
it is because of the support of volume and their
revenue backstop.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:08:03 GMT
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > 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)
Go back to that site. The spelling is "Jan". "Jan" is
quite common as a man's name:
Jan Murray (old actor, may be dead now)
Jan Hammer (keyboard artist, composer for "Miami Vice")
Doh! All this time I've been reading your name as "Jan".
That does wonders for my credibility, eh!!! Damn Netscape
fonts! Oh no, here we go about X fonts!!!!!!!!!!
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
