Linux-Advocacy Digest #273, Volume #35 Fri, 15 Jun 01 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Todd Merritt)
MySQL? ("Henrik Andersen")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Macman)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: Will MS get away with this one? (Peter Hayes)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (.)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (.)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (.)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: 15 Jun 2001 14:27:42 -0600
"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > (And then they expect us to fall over wounded because some lame
> > > > I'm-going-out-of-buisiness Windows magazine is doing a publicity stunt
> > > > for some sustainted advertising dollars)
> > >
> > > That's rich. Oh, that's precious. A linvocate trying to talk about
> > > "going-out-of-business" and trying to make some dollars? given the
> > > "performance" of EVERY single "linux" related company you can think of -
> I
> > > find that laughable.
> >
> > Like IBM and Oracle?
> >
> > Hrmmm.
>
> I don't consider them "Linux related" because they have a product or two
> that happens to use linux so they can ride the bandwagon of hype and
> anti-MS-ism.
So anyone who uses something else is now considered Anti-MS? Is this
McCarthyism or something (you guys DO keep calling us 'communists' for
some reason...even though I'm a republican)?
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Todd Merritt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:58:22 -0700
On 15 Jun 2001, Craig Kelley wrote:
> Todd Merritt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 15 Jun 2001, . wrote:
> >
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > >> (And then they expect us to fall over wounded because some lame
> > > >> I'm-going-out-of-buisiness Windows magazine is doing a publicity stunt
> > > >> for some sustainted advertising dollars)
> > >
> > > > That's rich. Oh, that's precious. A linvocate trying to talk about
> > > > "going-out-of-business" and trying to make some dollars? given the
> > > > "performance" of EVERY single "linux" related company you can think of - I
> > > > find that laughable.
> > >
> > > IBM makes the largest, fastest parallel clusters in the world. See the
> > > ASCI series, also Blue.
> >
> > Err, ASCI Blue is an SGI.
>
> Nope; the 'Blue' is for IBM and the mountain in which it lives.
3 IBM
ASCI Blue-Pacific
SST, IBM SP 604e
Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory
Livermore
USA
4 SGI
ASCI Blue
Mountain
Los Alamos National
Laboratory Los
Alamos
>From http://www.top500.org/list/2000/11. I work on an origin 2000, when
we were upgrading our processors last time and having trouble with the
router boards, the engineer that they flew in to look at it worked on
ASCI Blue.
------------------------------
From: "Henrik Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MySQL?
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:30:53 +0200
Reply-To: "Henrik Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi I'm a Linux Newbie....
So' here's a newbie question:
Is there a distribution where MySQL is included???
And PHP support of course....
Write me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best Regards Henrik Andersen, Denamark
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:25:47 +0600
In article <9gdnp2$r6v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Maybe you should know a bit more about DLL Hell.. its not about the
> number of libraries but about the versions of the libraries installed.
It's OK, he was just quoting the drivel he read elsewhere. He isn't
expected to think about it critically -- or even understand it -- so
long as it leaves him with the comfy feeling that Linux isn't a threat
to his MS fantasy.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:32:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > It figures you would cchampoion micro$ofts changing the appearnce of
> > other people's pages. Micro$of has no right to change the prsentation of
> > someone else's page. NONE.
>
> Microsoft isn't changing anything.
We've been over this. Microsoft's software adds links that change the
hypertect structure of a document.
> *I* changed the appearance on *my*
> computer. I can also turn off graphics, sounds, videos, change fonts
> and sizes, background colors, etc.
>
> Why is this any different?
>
> Frankly, after turning it on (I have Windows XP here) I like it. I
> think you folks complaining about it simply haven't seen it in action
> and/or don't understand how it works and what it does.
It keeps a list of words and URLs. When it encounters a word in a web
pages, it transforms that word into a hyperlink to the associated URL.
The list of words and URLs is determined by someone other than the web
site's author.
What part do I have wrong?
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:36:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 15 Jun 2001 08:27:09 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > (Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> > It's not hyper links, it has a distinctly different look.
> > >> > It's obvious that it's not the page author that put it there.
> > >> > You hover the mouse over a word with a wavy line underneath, and
> > >> > it pop
> > >> > a
> > >> > little graphic, that lets you do stuff about it.
> > >> > Frex, CompaQ, you get to go to the comapny's site, view stock
> > >> > information,
> > >> > read press releases, etc.
> > >>
> > >> Who put the wavy line in the page?
> > >> If you put wavy lines in my page you violate my copyright and may be
> > >> guilty of vandalism.
> > >
> > >No way. I'm free to change fonts, eliminate graphics, turn off
> > >cookies, etc.
> >
> > Are you free to intercept pages that other people are viewing and
> > stick in links to rival sites?
>
> THAT'S NOT WHAT SMART TAGS DO!!!!!!!!!! Yes that was shouting!
>
> It's strictly local to the machine viewing the page. The page on the
> server IS NOT CHANGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Settle down.
We know that the file on the server is not changed.
What's at issue is that new hyperlinks are added to the text of a web
page before it is shown to the user, and that the author of the web page
has no control over these new added hyperlinks.
It doesn't much matter whether the point of interception is a single
place between the server and the web site viewers or inside of every
browser ... what the web site guest sees has a different hyperlink
structure from what the web site author created.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:43:15 GMT
In article <9gdqql$b0q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Really? Microsoft isn't a third party?
>
> No, it doesn't get involved in this at all.
No kidding?
The Smart Tags just appeared all by themselves? No one had to write the
software to make them work?
Wow! Isn't technology wonderful?
>
> > So when I view a web page using MSIE with Smart Tags, there are only two
> > parties?
>
> Yes, the user, and the page author.
> No where along the line it's going through MS' servers and being changed.
PLEASE GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL---No one has ever suggested that
it goes through Microsoft's servers.
But Microsoft's software does change the structure of the web page by
adding hyperlinks that the author never intended. Microsoft is clearly
involved.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:40:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I still don't like the idea of someone changing or adding to the
> > content
> > of my page. Hyperlinks are part of the content.
>
> So what about using a text only browser? Have I "changed your page" by
> eliminating the graphics?
>
> Same thing.
Not the same thing. The Web was created from the start to be a way for
browsers of different capabilities to display text and graphics.
Everyone creating web pages knew that some browsers could display images
within the text while others required helper applications to view the
images. Viewing images may be optional, but no browser ever enabled
viewing different images than what the server sent.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:41:52 GMT
In article <9gd42g$3bj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > You, as a user, have certain rights under the fair use doctrine.
> > Presumably, looking at the text only, or changing fonts, or similar
> > things would fall under fair use.
> >
> > Microsoft, as a third party, does not have the same rights. They do have
> > the rights to fair use, but what they're doing would almost certainly
> > not fall under that doctrine.
> >
> > Your analogy stinks.
>
> Don't I, as the user, have a right to *want* those smart tags?
Don't I, as the web page developer, have the *right* to have my page
free of smart tags? Why do you insisit on taking away the web page
author's right to determine what hyperlinks are displayed on his web
page?
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:43:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Macman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you think it is an option you have to turn ON or turn OFF? :) If
> > it is, indeed, an option you can turn ON, you as a user, have the
> > "right" to want to turn it on and it is fine. However, if it is an
> > option ON from the beginning, MS has choosen the default behaviour
> > of the browser and only the minority will turn it off, or even will
> > know how. :)
>
> There's another issue, though.
>
> Even if it's off by default and the user can turn it on, there's
> still the potential for vast abuse by Microsoft -- since they are the
> ones who set the default smart tags. To me, that's a much larger
> issue than whether it's on or off
That is the most important issue, as far as I'm concerned. Who is in
control of these additional hyperlinks? Not the web page publishers.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:46:44 GMT
In article <9gdm1k$35d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sure. It should be something that you can _choose_ to install. It should
> > not be installed by default.
>
> It's off by default.
In this version.
When does the option get turned on by default? When does the option to
turn it off disappear?
> > AND, it should not be something that a monopoly controls. Even if you
> > choose to install it, it's unethical (at best) for Microsoft to be able
> > to create the smart links where they could create a link to their own
> > site every time the word "Macintosh" appears or a link to the American
> > Cancer Society every time Linux appears or other shenanigans.
>
> All MS does is to supply a stock of words for the smart tags.
> You, and anybody else, can add your own.
> Cool off with the paranoia.
I can add my own to my own browser but not to anyone else's.
The initial stock of words and URLs is determined by Microsoft ... not
by the web page author.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will MS get away with this one?
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:55:00 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:31:31 -0400, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:40:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Said Form@C in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:09:58 GMT;
<...>
> > > >Remember the hard-sector disks that Apple kept using for years after
> > > >everyone else (almost) had ditched them?
> > >
> > > No, I don't. When was that?
> >
> > Instead of identifying sectors in software as happens when you format a
> > floppy, Apple's hard sectored disks had a series of holes, generally 16 of
> > them, to identify the sectors. Wozniak did it that way because he didn't
> > have the cash for disk controller hardware.
> >
>
> Are you high?
> I have never seen an Apple floppy with 16 holes. And Wozniak didnt
> design his drive controlle card until Apple had already incorporated.
> Markula was already there too. His design was described as another
> engineering work of art.
http://www.classiccmp.org/mail-archive/classiccmp/1997-04/0558.html
> > Apple have shafted just as many people as Microsoft, the only difference
> > being that Apple's victims were the little guy and Microsoft took on the big
> > boys.
> >
> > Peter
>
> How has Apple shafted as many as micro$oft. Just by sgeer size, m$ HAS
> to have shafted more. After all, everyone that uses an m$ OS is getting
> a big one from Gates.
OK, maybe I should have said "in proportion to its size .....
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: 15 Jun 2001 21:09:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Todd Merritt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2001, . wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> (And then they expect us to fall over wounded because some lame
>> >> I'm-going-out-of-buisiness Windows magazine is doing a publicity stunt
>> >> for some sustainted advertising dollars)
>>
>> > That's rich. Oh, that's precious. A linvocate trying to talk about
>> > "going-out-of-business" and trying to make some dollars? given the
>> > "performance" of EVERY single "linux" related company you can think of - I
>> > find that laughable.
>>
>> IBM makes the largest, fastest parallel clusters in the world. See the
>> ASCI series, also Blue.
>>
> Err, ASCI Blue is an SGI.
I didnt say asci blue, I said asci, AND blue. Deep, Big, and Moto are all
IBM. :P
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: 15 Jun 2001 21:11:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9gdcjb$e1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> (And then they expect us to fall over wounded because some lame
>> >> I'm-going-out-of-buisiness Windows magazine is doing a publicity stunt
>> >> for some sustainted advertising dollars)
>>
>> > That's rich. Oh, that's precious. A linvocate trying to talk about
>> > "going-out-of-business" and trying to make some dollars? given the
>> > "performance" of EVERY single "linux" related company you can think of -
> I
>> > find that laughable.
>>
>> IBM makes the largest, fastest parallel clusters in the world. See the
>> ASCI series, also Blue.
> Which isn't running Linux.
The 604 based ones can, and do.
>>
>> If thats a little rich for your blood, you can get a single S/390 node
>> running vm/linux (suse, ibm) with all the licensing you need (including
>> DB2 and software) for right around 600,000 US dollars, not including
>> shipping and installation.
> Wow - just what I need to run my Free OS on - what a savings!
IBM's Linux is NOT free for use on S/390 actually. Again, you do not know what
youre talking about.
> I would hardly consider IBM to be a "linux related" company. Lets say that
> IBM is just a company looking to borrow some hype from Linux for the simple
> reason it's "not-MS" and cause it was easy to port to their already running
> *nix systems.
Again, you dont know what youre talking about. IBM would have been using
windows a long time ago if microsoft made a PPC compatable operating system.
Which they dont.
> Then again, go ahead, include them. I see them spending money like water on
> their Linux marketing and development and making $0 on it so far. Woo hoo -
> it's a publicity and marketing strategy - you'll figure it out eventually;
> the rest of us already have.
Actually, the revenue from linux-based S/390 nodes has already covered operationals
for development and porting. 1000 sold and counting.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:13:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:26:22 +0200
<9gce0s$1o7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>>
>> Your stock options are almost toilet paper as it is, seeing that from
>> over a year ago MS stock lost 2/3 of its value.
>
>It didn't lose 2/3 of its value.
>
>And did you notice that it's stock price is *climbing* in a reccession?
>
>It used to be < 50$, not it's closer to 70$.
It appears that Microsoft's high was around 120 -- after adjusting
for stock splits (the last one being a 2:1 on March 29, 1999).
The closing stock price as of today is $68.02. At most, this appears
to be a loss of 44%, down from a loss of about 65% (it hit its low of
40.25 sometime before January 2001 and has increased 70% or so
in value since).
http://quote.yahoo.com/q?s=MSFT&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p=s&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- anybody got a spare time machine?
EAC code #191 0d:08h:30m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: 15 Jun 2001 21:13:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9gdcm3$e1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dave Martel"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 12 Jun 2001 11:48:13 -0500, "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Yes, I know the study was partially sponsored by MS (someone has to
> pay
>> >> >>for these things) so please don't fire off stupid replies implying
> that
>> >> >>MS purposely contaminated it's own results by 'buying the study' -
>> >> >>that's just preposterous.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not at all preposterous, given their past history of sponsoring
> "flawed"
>> >> > studies.
>> >>
>> >> "Hello, Gartner? Yeah, Miller from Microsoft again. Look, we'd like
> you
>> >> to do another independent study for us. You know, call up a bunch of
>> >> system administrators and ask them if they've bought any Linux servers
> in
>> >> the last year. Oh, no, not at all, we'll be more than happy to provide
>> >> you with a cold-call list. Just don't tell anybody we culled it from
> our
>> >> MSVP and MCSE mailings. Good enough. Pleasure talking to you again."
>>
>> > "Hello Netcraft? Yea, Linus here. Look, can we jigger those figures
> again.
>> > You know, publish some really high numbers for Apache, low ones for IIS,
>> > jigger then around a little up and down and since there is no
> independent
>> > verification and no one else is even trying I'm sure no one will mind.
> Of
>> > course I won't be paying you anything, I don't have any money, but I can
>> > guarentee you'll get mentioned on Slashdot again this month. Great ...
> and,
>> > please, wear that aftershave I sent you, it really turns me on."
>>
>> Are you accusing Linus Torvalds of bribing netcraft to skew results?
>>
>> You realize he does actually read this newsgroup now and then, dont you?
> Just as you accused MS of bribing Gartner (and whomever happens to print
> something favorable about MS or disfavorable about Linux)?
Neat. You dont even understand usenet, and have attributed commentary to
me that I did *not* make. Retract immediately please.
> I'm sure Linus would recognize both paragraphs as being utter crap and not
> even bother with it. GET IT?
I get that youre an idiot who doesnt understand computers at all, yes.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: 15 Jun 2001 21:16:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9gdd68$e1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "JS \ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> I wasn't aware that netcraft was counting physical servers. When did
> that
>> >> start happening?
>> >> The way they count has nothing to do with server market share.
>> >> No more than counting houses shows the amount of cities.
>>
>> > Netcraft has never claimed nor is it even capable (or anyone for that
>> > matter) of counting physical servers.
>>
>> > So, a mom&pop ISP running a single BSD box using Apache with 2000
> virtual
>> > hosts (those little 5 meg sites that joes diner and franks car repair
> puts
>> > up their one or two pages created in dreamweaver or frontpage)
>>
>> Apparently youve never had to deal with such a box. Heres an example:
>>
>> I can run 3500 of those websites *easily* on a dual PIII 600 w/1 gig of
> ram
>> and freebsd 4.3.
> Um, thank you. You've even further proven my point. 3500 of _those_ sites
> easily - I believe that because I've seen it. Some are name only virtual
> hosts. Only 3500?? I've seen more.
So have I, I was talking about *small* machines, dipshit.
>>
>> IIS cannot handle 3500 websites, no matter what kind of hardware its
> running
>> on, and never has been able to. Microsoft likes you to pile em on
> lightly,
>> or buy one box per site.
> "That is completely untrue. Here is a little tool from MS that will assist
> you in creating and managing up to about 5000 virtual hosts on a single
> server (Scalable Hosting Solutions):
> http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/IIS/shsover.asp
Which doesnt, and has NEVER worked. Never actually tried it, have you?
Try running 500 high traffic coldfusion sites on one W2K box of ANY size.
Never done that before either, have you?
> Depending on the application, a single IIS 5.0 server can host up to 5,000
> sites due to the amount of storage required in the Metabase for each
> additional site.
Which is generally seen (even by microsoft engineers, ask paul salada) to
be the biggest braindeath of IIS. Next to its allowance out of the box of
random writings to the registry of course.
> SHS however, is designed to support many more sites because
> all virtual site subdirectories share the same configuration of the root
> directory web site. Therefore, with SHS, you can create and maintain tens to
> hundreds of thousands of parked and/or virtual sites."
Yes, thats what the whitesheet says. So microsoft created a product to make
IIS work just a little bit more like apache---and it doesnt even work.
Thats lovely.
> http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/IIS/shsadmin.asp
> Beats apache any day ...
It does? Proof please.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
