Linux-Advocacy Digest #659, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Oh Chad -- Look at these TCP scores (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: The nature of competition ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (GreyCloud)
Re: which linux dist? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The nature of competition (mlw)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Oh Chad -- Look at these TCP scores
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 07:13:02 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
> Not that TCP scores mean anything (sorry, I still think it's a
> worthless meter);
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but the really worthless
TCP score is TCP-C, which can be scaled arbitrarily by adding hardware
-- it's almost perfectly parallell if you can split up your database.
It's not something a sane person would do in a production setting.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 00:18:05 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > MS-DOS and CP/M were just awful close.
> > > Same problem with Windows NT and VMS.
> >
> > VMS and NT are a million miles apart. Neither are even equivalent.
> > VMS is at least mature. NT crashes.
>
> VMS is quite a lot more stable than NT, or at least
> it was when I used it. More stable then any Unix
> I've ever seen, too. Very impressive.
>
> But structurally they are very similar at the low
> levels. They have the same notion of system
> services, the same mechanism for interrupt
> handling, the same mechanism for process
> scheduling.
>
> It's quite striking.
>
> Stability isn't the only attribute an OS can have
> (or lack).
The asynchronous tty boards were a part of some system service calls.
Actually, if one didn't keep up with the ECOs (hardware upgrades) and
the VMS O/S upgrades one could get into trouble. The hardware and the
O/S were very much dependent on each other. That was one reason I
stayed away from third party hardware board vendors. The VMS O/S is
quite different that NT in these areas from what I had been told by an
NT developer. Mainly it handled the VT-220 on up series of terminals.
But I suspect a lot of Dave Cutlers' VMS design experience went into NT
as well. I suspect that Dave added more features oriented to the
desktop PC and left out older pieces of code that supported the TTYs.
The VAX had no video memory per se to deal with... that was left to
expensive monitors having to deal with the TTY line, hence the use of
Regis Graphics codes.
--
V
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 07:37:31 GMT
"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's this? The linux box is not a box, it's a ... GASP
> ... CLUSTER! OH NO!
Yes, but TCP-H isn't TCP-C
> And, what's this? The linux solution uses a fiber channel storage array
> connected via 5 PCI controllers (whew!) versus a single plain jane scsi card
> in the compaq.
Now there's an understatement - the Compaq machinery uses a total of
eight interface cards, seven of them SMART array adapters. "Plain
jane" priced at over $50K?
> And, what's this? Linux needs a gigabit adapter while W2K does fine with a
> single 10/100 card.
Because it's two boxes, not one perhaps?
> But - say the penguins - remember, LINUX IS FREE
Not in that sense. And DB2 certainly isn't cheap. You have to pay
for performance that is currently unmatched by any other PC software.
> cheaper that you'll always save money using Linux.
That's your assertion.
> 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?
That'll be interesting. I'm quite surprised they haven't got
something together already, as Windows is making a really poor
showing in TCP-H.
> I will... (hint: check out the TPC-C results
Yeah, right.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 00:38:50 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > Just what argument did Max lose?
> > >
> > > He seem to have given up trying to defend
> > > the notion that Windows is inferior for now.
> >
> > It is inferior. What delusional perceptions do you have to think that
> > it is the best?
>
> I had been arguing that Windows is the best development
> platform for making desktop applications of the
> conventional sort, not that it was ever the best
> platform for everything.
>
I think that this flocking of developers to windows had a lot to do with
hardware/software costs versus other systems at that time. MS C in 1991
was around $300 vs. VMS C for $6000 depending on how many users were
going to use it. C on Sun at that time was $2000... funny they haven't
increased it nor decreased its price.
A startup developer could enter into the windows market a lot easier at
a lower cost than any of the other systems then.
Today I see the developers landscape starting to change as Linux and
Solaris prices are now lower than windows... considering again the
hardware for solaris is now within the grasp of the entering developer.
Back in the 80's to get going in VMS would have cost a fortune... now
you can get a used VAX for next to nothing with only one glitch...
software licensing costs. Still a little high.
> I was saying, you see, that Windows was
> near-universal on the desktop because
> developers had flocked too it, and users
> had to follow to use all the apps that were
> being produced.
>
> I wished to show that developers had
> good reason to flock to Windows (for
> desktop apps), and so didn't just do it
> because the users were there.
>
> My argument for it at the time centered around
> printing support. Windows provides
> a device independant printing model that
> lets you redirect screen drawing commands
> to the printer. This makes WYSIWYG much
> easier, and it is a feature shared by the Mac,
> OS/2, and NextStep, but not by other Unixes.
>
Unixes rely on Postscript as the default output. Drawings are output to
postscript printers directly without any user intervention. Using a
non-postscript printer requires the one-time set up of ghostscript. I
have no problems with my Epson 600 under Solaris.
> This puts those other Unixes out of the running
> for whole categories of apps.
>
Not true. The problem for Unix so far is the price, which is changing.
> Now, the Mac has no API that exposes
> the existance of printer fonts. This makes
> for nasty problems if font substitution is
> used, or slow printing if it isn't. The Mac
> also uses a physical-pixel model for screen
> drawing, which is hard to use when printing.
>
> NextStep used display postscript, which meant
> that printing on PostScript printers worked
> wonderfully, but all non-PostScript printers
> were reduced to printing bitmaps- and the latter
> printers are rather more common.
>
Again, I have no problem printing any kind of graphics to my Epson 600.
> OS/2 had a printing system similar to Windows,
> but it's printer setup user interface was infamous
> for its difficulty for years.
>
> The situation for printing is typical; Windows
> has the best tools for desktop app developers,
> OS/2 comes in second and is pretty close. Most
> others have serious gaps, and generic Unix
> tends to have almost no support for anything
> that desktop apps need.
>
That too about UNIX is not true. There is plenty of support.
> I can extend this to some other areas with
> specifics, if you want to hear it.
>
> [snip]
--
V
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 07:39:41 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Linux has yet to show up anywhere near the real metric: the TPC-C.
I'm very curious why anybody would think clustered TPC-C is more
relevant than TPC-H (or the other TPC benchmarks)?
I mean, apart from showing off how many cheap boxes you can afford to
stack together.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:41:26 +0100
>> I see a lot of talk on this forum about how Linux is marginally better
>> or W2K is marginally better, etc. From a price/performance perspective
>> W2K
> has
>> to be A LOT better than linux to even tie, and we don't see this
> happening.
>
> Well, so far, the only real tests of price/performance that Linux
> machines have participated in is the TPC benchmark, and that showed a
> price/performance ratio of over twice that of the Win2k box.
TPC is just a benchmark, not a real world measure. In the real world, it
is Linux, not Win2K that shows up at the top end of acalibility and
price/performance.
>> Linux has been proven to be more stable.
>
> It has? How? I've seen no verifiable studies that show Linux's uptime
> to be greater than anything else.
120 day MTTF, *with* nightly reboots.
>> Linux has proven to be more secure.
>
> Again, it has? What do you call the 49 security bulletins in the last 6
> months for Red Hat?
Well that beats IIs by miles. And besifdes, RedHat != Linux. How many
issues has slackware or debian had?
>> Linux is free.
>
> More of that ambiguity.
Well, you can get it gratis, no ambiguity there.
>> So, why would anyone choose a Microsoft solution?
>
> Software.
PHB.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 07:42:49 GMT
Snaggler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 15 May 2001 22:28:02 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> And, what's this? The linux solution uses a fiber channel storage array
>>>> connected via 5 PCI controllers (whew!) versus a single plain jane scsi
>>>> card in the compaq.
> Plain Jane SCSI, that's brilliant. Did you bother to read the Full
> Disclosure by Compaq? Obviously not because you would have read the
> "Storage Enclosure" section and found that Compaq used not one but
> two
Seven, actually, and in addition, a "normal" SCSI card.
> SMART Array Controllers, one of which was a four-channel model + 2
> 15K drives.
Six of those.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 00:47:03 -0700
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 11:15:27 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> gotta love the Linux advocacy in this thread :)
> >
> >HAHA!! Maybe we need an app running under Linux that will evaluate the
> >strengths of condoms??
>
> Actually, you can already find one, in operation, in the CIDAL plant,
> in Santa Fe, Argentina, the largest condom manufacturer of South
> America.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
Is it running under Linux?? :-))
I wonder if they use LaTex for their documentation... or is it for the
condoms?? :-))
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: which linux dist?
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:53:41 +0100
>>> I tried Mandrake 8.0 and it is brilliant as everything works out
>>> immediately but I found it a bit too slow and painful to get rid of
>>> all the services i did not really need.
>>>
>>> Which distribution would you recommend?
>>
>> By the sounds of it, you'd probably be better off with slackware.
>
> Or Debain
Probably Slackware, since he's already got that running and is very happy
with it.
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:59:57 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 11:28:39 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Nope. Someone is copying "me style" to create some traffic.
>>>
>>> My material is much better.
>>>
>>>
>>> flatfish
>>
>>Whatever happened to the ++++?
>
>
> Linux users were complaining that I was putting their el-cheapo Hayes
> Modems circa 1995 into escape (command?) mode :)
LOL! But, modem trivia was never one of my strong points.
> flatfish
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 04:07:24 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e9eus$c8b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I was talking with some guys at work. We were joking that we saved
> $100,000
>> on Microsoft licenses on our website. We used Linux, Apache, Postgres,
> php,
>> and perl across multiple boxes behind a load balancer.
>>
>> I see a lot of talk on this forum about how Linux is marginally better or
>> W2K is marginally better, etc. From a price/performance perspective W2K
> has
>> to be A LOT better than linux to even tie, and we don't see this
> happening.
>
> Well, so far, the only real tests of price/performance that Linux machines
> have participated in is the TPC benchmark, and that showed a
> price/performance ratio of over twice that of the Win2k box.
The TPC is NOT an OS benchmark. How many times does this have to be
debated? It is a measure of home many transactions a specific database
environment can do. It is a heavy test of hardware, SQL environment, and
configuration. The OS has very little to do with it.
Beyond that, to submit results one must be a member. Also there is no
centralized lab performing these tests to isolate the performance impact of
the various components.
It is a 100% bogus benchmark that means nothing in a debate about OS
performance. It simply states that this one configuration managed to
maintain this performance level for this long. NOTHING else.
>
>> Linux is at least as fast, if not faster.
>
> Depends on the task. Linux is *NOT* as fast or faster for things like
> Video editing, for instance.
That is an interesting statement. Why do you say that? Perhaps some
applications are not as fast as others, but TiVO is based on Linux,
wouldn't that mean anything?
In fact, with kernel frame buffer support, there is no reason that Linux
would be any slower than any other OS on the same hardware.
>
>> Linux has been proven to be more stable.
>
> It has? How? I've seen no verifiable studies that show Linux's uptime to
> be greater than anything else.
Define "Verifiable" as it applies here.
>
>> Linux has proven to be more secure.
>
> Again, it has? What do you call the 49 security bulletins in the last 6
> months for Red Hat?
It isn't the number, it is the severity and the number of documented
exploits prior to a patch being made available. Besides, I think any notion
that NT/2K is secure is ridiculous based on the various news items.
>
>> Linux is free.
>
> More of that ambiguity.
What is ambiguous about free? That is a FUD comment and you know it.
>
>> So, why would anyone choose a Microsoft solution?
>
> Software.
With the exception of games, what software does Windows have that does not
have an analogy on Linux?
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 01:06:21 -0700
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Bias is all too obvious. Propaganda has certain forms and patterns.
> > Jan / Jon is predictable... an agenda.
>
> You are enitrely too shallow and immediatey jumping to the wrong conclusion.
>
> I don't need an agenda nor follow one. Propaganda? hehe... biased? yep. hell
> yes. JUST as linvocates are biased towards linux and anti-MS in every word
> they spue.
>
Of course you are biased. But the bias I'm looking at is more toward the
defense of MS corporate behaviour, not in the actual products they
sell. Also, the anti-linux win-zealots will go out of their way to try
and squash linux to show favor for windows.
I advocate FOR linux and its improvements. Alternatives are necessary
for the healthy competition of the computer industry... without it you
would have stagnation and a growing disinterest with investors looking
elsewhere.
> Look - W2K works fargin' perfectly for me and my buddies. Everywhere I go I
> see W2K working fine. I just simply do not see any of the problems unix
> advocates claim plague w2k. they are just not there. I see this as lies and
> a simple campagn of FUD - utterly predictable. The unix/anti-MS types
> continue to spue fear from ages old Win9x blue screen conditions. They
> refuse to acknowledge that W2K is not 10 year old code and doesn't suffer
> from ages old/solved problems.
>
I prefer a well debugged O/S that has matured over time... like VS or
VMS or UNIX.
W2K is still a youngster in the O/S arena. Some will happily use it for
their purposes without worry, others will wait till the bugs are fixed
up and possibly some added features. MAC OS X is based, from what I've
managed to gather info about, on the Carnegie-Mellon unix with a lot of
enhancements in the GUI area. I've pretty much read what everybody in
this ng has to say about the Win9x series as being garbage and agree.
What I don't see much of in my town are systems being sold with W2K on
it... most are Win98 or WinME installed. People I know are now asking
for alternatives to windows. About the best I can do for a newbie is to
steer them to the iMac. The well informed user or educated user will
migrate to linux or Unix.
My wifes' biggest concern with W2K is will it run bridge on MSNs'
Gamezone??
No one yet has ever answered that question.
> My bias is all to obvious alright - I prefer to report my first hand
> experiences and deny the lies of those that haven't even seen the product
> they attempt to disparage.
>
> Give me a break... you unix advocate types are the exact same except you
> make shit up or ignore current events prefering to hang desperately onto old
> crap...
I don't make this so called "crap" up. I also from my experience with
Unix and VMS report what I have experienced as well. A lot of different
vendors have for instance file conversion formats for MS file systems
for cross sharing of information.
>From my conversations with a few MSCEs I was going to hold out for XP
for the wife ... but found out later that she is going to need a new
computer to do XP. Now I read reports and stories about the licensing
issues that are new to the home user... when any company starts uping
the ante by the use of licenses is when I shy away from that company,
especially when they want an annual fee. Win2k pricing is higher than
Solaris 8 pricing.... and with Solaris 8 I get some extra nice software
to use.
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
