Linux-Advocacy Digest #341, Volume #35 Sun, 17 Jun 01 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: Antitrust DVD ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows ("Nik Simpson")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (Chris Street)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (.)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (.)
Re: Will MS get away with this one? (Form@C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:37:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > It's *my* computer. How I choose to display your web page is none
> > > of
> > > your business. You supply the defaults, I supply the customization.
> >
> > I'm fine with that, as long as it's really you doing it. What I object
> > to is Microsoft (or anyone else) supplying new informational content in
> > the form of additional hyperlinks on my web site.
>
> OK, we're getting somewhere!
Ah! A glimmer of hope?
> Now how is Microsoft "supplying new informational content" on *your*
> page?
Gosh, darn it, and I thought Dan was beginning to understand.
I've been saying this over and over and over and over. And over and over
and over...
Microsoft is adding new links to pages that people look at with their
browser. They are links I haven't approved for my web page.
> If you already mention Microsoft (or Apple, Yahoo, or who knows
> what else) on your page I can cut and paste those words into a Yahoo
> search and turn up the same links. Smart Tags just save me from
> cutting and pasting. That's really all they do.
Your'e talking implementation and convenience. Those things are fine and
dandy. I'm talking about some other central authority adding links to my
page (yes, when seen by MS IE users.)
> Remember, Smart Tags are only triggered by words that *already appear*
> on *your* page. Nothing is "added". If you don't want that to
> happen, then don't mention Microsoft (or Apple, Yahoo, or who knows what
> else) on your page.
Oh, so now Microsoft is limiting my freedom of speech, with the threat
of turning my words into links to web sites they approve?
> IAC, I think we've about beat this into the ground! Feel free to not
> use them, and I'll continue to use them. That's the beauty of choice -
> everybody's happy!
Are you dense? I don't object to you doing your own web searches on web
sites you see. I object to Microsoft doing it for you.
--
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$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:38:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > It adds links that I DONT WANT ON MY PAGE. What dont you understand? If
> > I want links to GM, Coca-Cola, or the Shah of Iran, I'll put them there.
> > If I dont put three, I must not want them there... ON MY PAGE. MY PAGE.
> > its not there for microSoft software to change.
> > What... dont... you... understand???
>
> What don't *you* understand? When the page is displayed on *my*
> computer, I'm free to display it in any way that suits me.
>
> Making navigation easier - to sites that are *already* mentioned on
> *your* page, BTW - is all that Smart Tags do. They don't "add"
> anything.
Liar. You yourself stated earlier that the links are added by Microsoft
to web sites they select.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:38:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > It adds links that I DONT WANT ON MY PAGE. What dont you understand? If
> > I want links to GM, Coca-Cola, or the Shah of Iran, I'll put them there.
> > If I dont put three, I must not want them there... ON MY PAGE. MY PAGE.
> > its not there for microSoft software to change.
> > What... dont... you... understand???
>
> What don't *you* understand? When the page is displayed on *my*
> computer, I'm free to display it in any way that suits me.
>
> Making navigation easier - to sites that are *already* mentioned on
> *your* page, BTW - is all that Smart Tags do. They don't "add"
> anything.
Liar.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Antitrust DVD
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:36:52 +0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ray Chason"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Piers Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Luckily we have access to US DVD's or else I would never have seen it.
>
> Yeah, but if Hollywood had it's way, it wouldn't work with your
> player.
Most ironic, considering the title of the movie.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:40:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Ahlstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, I'm wondering if it will be possible to e-mail a trojan that
> would replace the default smart tags with a set of less "friendly"
> ones.
Now this is a good idea. It would demonstrate exactly the kind of thing
I've been talking about.
Change every mention of Microsoft to a link to www.infernosoft.com, and
change every mention of a Microsoft product to a link to the competing
Infernosoft product. I like it. }: )
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:40:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:11:15 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >Dan wrote:
>
> >Also, I'm wondering if it will be possible to e-mail a trojan that
> >would replace the default smart tags with a set of less "friendly"
> >ones.
>
> Interesting idea. It could be used inside a virus to divert everyone
> to Linux websites..
Infernsoft would be better.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:45:59 -0400
"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> >> My computer's Basic Input/Output Service settings and Windows
> >settings
> >> >> >> are correct, as always. Microsoft has disabled the power switch
in
> >> >> >> certain circumstances in an effort to cope with Windows technical
> >> >> >> problems. When I want to turn off my computer, I would like to
use
> >my
> >> >> >> computer's power switch to do so.
> >> >>
> >> >> >That's not Windows fault, it's to do with the ACPI BIOS I believe.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what entity dictated that standard?
> >> >
> >> >Uh, Intel.
> >>
> >> Uh, provide a citation.
> >> Microsoft dictates to iNtel, not the other way around.
> >
> >Having been involved with Intel and it's development track for several
years
> >during the relevant period I can assure you that Intel drove ACPI. I
can't
> >think of anything that would persuade you of this except perhaps a signed
> >letter from Andy Grove, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to
provide
> >this proof to you. Perhaps you have some proof that ACPI was a Microsoft
> >development, if so feel free to share.
> >PS, your paranoia and ignorance will not suffice.
>
> English translation "I will cop out instead of answer"
> As I already said and everyone else already knows, Microsoft dictates
> the standards. So the burdon of proof is on Nik.
Huh, you've made an asertion without facts which I disputed, but somehow the
burden of proof is on me! ACPI was developed by Intel to provide better
power management for laptops particularly and PCs in general.Of course they
consulted with MS, after all MS at the time was the only viable OS for the
platforms concerned, but it was there idea.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:45:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Neither Google nor anonymizer changes the _content_ of pages. If
> > > > they
> > > > start changing the content, then they should be stopped.
> > >
> > > Smart Tags do not change the *content* of pages, either. It just
> > > presents more navigation options to the individual user.
> > >
> >
> > For a web page, hyperlinks are part of the content.
>
> But Smart Tags are not hyperlinks, are they? They are a locally
> generated pop up Window with navigation aids.
Hats back on, gentlemen, an idiot.
Navigation aids? Whats that? Things you click on that take you to
anotehr web page? Wow! Just like hyperlinks.
Dan, you've tried to redefine hyperlinks in such a narrow way that even
hyperlinks displayed in Lynx are not hyperlinks, all so that SmartTags
are not called hyperlinks.
So. SmartTags are part of a page's content. My web page contains no
SmartTags. They are added by the new IE. I cannot control what content
they have. I don't like that.
> If your page already mentions Microsoft (or Apple, Cisco, Yahoo, Sun
> etc.) I can already cut and paste the word into a Yahoo search and turn
> up pretty much the same links. Smart Tags just save me from having to
> cut and paste. That's really all they do. They don't add anything to
> the page in question.
SmartTags save you from having to think for yoruself, an activity in
which you clearly are handicapped.
> IAC, they are an option. Feel free to ignore them, and I will continue
> to use them, OK?
No, not OK, for reasons we've mentioned over and over again.
--
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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:48:05 GMT
In article <eB0X6.17400$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <OvQW6.16844$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
> > Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > No, it is clickable text, otherwise its simply a reference (such
> > > as a bibliography). To be a hyperlink it has to provide the
> > > mechanism to go to somewhere else.
> >
> > So you're telling us that SmartTags do not "provide the mechanism
> > to go to somewhere else"?
>
> They might, but they don't have to. A Smart Tag is simply the
> mechanism to highlight the words and provide a popup. The popup may
> include hyperlinks, or it might be a graphic image, or simply some
> text. What the Smart Tag contains is irrelevant to it being a Smart
> Tag.
You're saying that SmartTags can contain text, images, Shockwave movies,
Quicktime clips, as well as links to other web pages?
Well, that can't possibly be. All the Microsoft shills have been telling
us that SmartTags don't add to the content of a web page.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Street)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:46:34 GMT
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:30:39 GMT, LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >>"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>> My computer's Basic Input/Output Service settings and Windows settings
>>> >>> are correct, as always. Microsoft has disabled the power switch in
>>> >>> certain circumstances in an effort to cope with Windows technical
>>> >>> problems. When I want to turn off my computer, I would like to use my
>>> >>> computer's power switch to do so.
>>>
>>> >>That's not Windows fault, it's to do with the ACPI BIOS I believe.
>>>
>>> >And what entity dictated that standard?
>>>
>>> Nevermind. Highly likely that was Microsoft's doing, but it does not
>>> matter. Windows could unconditionally send a shut down signal to the
>>> mainboard. Instead, Windows polls itself to see if shutting down is
>>> OK. I have a macroer running which has something to do with it. The
>>> same thing happens when I do Start - Shut Down. Probably has
>>> something to do with the macroer's hooks. But the system is
>>> controlled by the operating system. Therefore, it is Microsoft's
>>> fault. My computer is supposed to shut down when I tell it to. What
>>> would you think if you hit the power switch on your TV and for some
>>> internal reason, it failed to turn itself off?
>
>>What would happen? You would have a modern TV. Modern TVs and DVD players
>>and Satellite receivers and DVRs like TIVO and UltimateTV don't turn off
>>when you press the power switch. They go into standby mode and there isn't a
>>damned thing you can do about that. Because that's how the manufacturer
>>designed it to operate.
>
>That is bullshit from someone who is clueless. In the case I cited,
>Windows does not turn off the hard disk, the CPU, or even the monitor.
>It does not go into sleep mode. Well, there is one exception.
>Millennium does turn off the monitor while I am watching Internet TV.
This is the same from someone who is sad and clueless. If you want to
turn off your computer by removing the power - use a switch that
interrupts the flow of electricty to the PSU. If you want to tell your
system to please turn off, use the switch on the front that toggles
the input line to the BIOS which will indicate that you want the BIOS
to tell the power supply to go into standby. If you don't want the OS
to have any say, learn how to set it up.
>:o/
>Perpetual dysfunctionallity is why I stopped using Windows power
>management years ago.
>
>>Don't like it? Don't buy it and don't use it. But shut up with your stupid
>>thread already. Didn't you already post this question before but using a
>>different name?
>
>I have always posted under the unique handle "LShaping"
><plonk>
>Now you may listen but you may not speak.
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:51:15 +0200
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:37:34 +0100, pip
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Bob Hauck wrote:
>> [snip agreeable stuff]
>>
>> > Static linking has problems too, BTW, just a different set of them.
>>
>> How so ? If I link to my own static lib or link to another static lib -
>> at least I know it will work.
>
> Static binaries can't share code pages, which uses more memory. If the
> kernel interfaces change, static binaries break, while dynamic ones can
> still work if the libraries they use to make syscalls are updated. And
> of course static binaries are bigger.
>
> In the case of GnuCash, which started this, I think someone said it was
> 60-odd library dependencies. I'd say that is a bit excessive unless
> most of them are pretty relaxed about which version you have. I agree
> that developers need to pay attention to these issues and not just pull
> in a big pile of stuff just because they can.
>
Sorry to butt in, but that is not the point. Someone picked up on the
fact that Gnucash depends on some 60 libraries. This is a silly way of
counting, as Gnucash is a Gnome application, and the Gnome developers
have made a deliberate choice to put Gnome functionality in a lot of
small libraries, instead of a single monolithic package ala KDE. Most of
Gnucash's dependencies are on regular Gnome libs.
Of course the real problem with Gnucash is that it is in active
development, so the extra libraries it depends on tend to be unstable and
carry API changes. This is not nice, I have seen Gnucash fsck up the
dependency list on my Debian system too many times, so I removed it.
Mart
--
Playing for the high one, dancing with the devil,
Going with the flow, it's all the same to me,
Seven or Eleven, snake eyes watching you,
Double up or quit, double stake or split, The Ace Of Spades
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: 17 Jun 2001 20:52:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9gdtug$kt1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
> wow - what a come back, of course it's the small ones - but who cares if
> your box can run 3500 or 5000 single page sites?
Apparantly youve never purchased for a web company. I have, and those numbers
mean quite alot.
>>
>> >>
>> >> 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?
> Personally no.
Didnt think so.
> Someone I've asked about it, yes. Over 5000? no, about 2700
> is what he is running on a single box but they sure are tiny dipship
> accounts that's for sure...
Hardly comparable. I'm talking about thousands of LARGE, BUSY SITES.
> just like what the majority of tiny ISPs host on
> their apache general web account boxes.
There are hardly any tiny ISP's left, first of all. Most of them were purchased
by bigger fish.
And of the bigger fish, *all* of them do *most* of their webhosting with some
kind of unix, period. Every once in a while youll see a big company that
keeps an NT webserving cluster around for neat things like Frontpage extension,
but thats becoming more and more a rarity.
> These are not figures or specs to be
> proud of on EITHER platform - you do realize that? I'm sure you don't - you
> seem to think that bigger is always better.
Having experience in the field (which you clearly do not have), I know exactly
when bigger is better: when it saves money, period.
>>
>> Try running 500 high traffic coldfusion sites on one W2K box of ANY size.
> Coldfusion sites, nope, never did run that many on a single box. Got me
> there. Don't have any idea how they'd do.
Terribly.
> But then again, who'd want to run
> 500 high traffic sites on a single box anyway?
A company that wants to spend less money on hosting so that it can impress
investors with its efficiency and profitability. That would be all of them,
these days.
> Ever heard of load balancing
> and not putting all your eggs in one basket?
Yes. Thats why its a handy idea to build out linux clusters (virtually
on big iron, or physically on small iron).
> Sounds like someone is trying
> desperately to improve a slim profit margin and cheating his customers... If
> my "high traffic" cold fusion site was on a server shared by 500 others - I
> would be VERY pissed.
You would have no idea, actually. None at all.
>>
>> Never done that before either, have you?
> Nope but I'm sure I could name something you've never done before and it
> would prove... that you've never done it before. so?
What you never doing it before proves is that you have no experience with
the subject. I on the other hand, have mounds of experience with the subject;
and I can say unquestionably that you are absolutely incorrect.
>>
>> > 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.
> Why not have Paul post his comment here then?
Ah, you do not know any microsoft engineers. Tell me, do you know any
MCSEs at least? Any one of them with half a brain in their head will
gladly back me up on this. Dozens and dozens already have.
=====.
--
"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: 17 Jun 2001 20:54:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael Vester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>> >
>> > >>"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.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > DO you run a webserver? maybe you should give YOUR account of what
>> > happens. What Microsoft/other vendor says and what happens in the real
>> > world are two totally different things.
>> >
>> > Matthew Gardiner
>>
>> We only run 5 dynamic web sites per IIS server. Even with that light
>> load, they rarely run for more than a week without freezing. Perhaps
>> IIS could run more static web sites without failure.
>>
> Now that just cracks me up. Do you expect anyone except a penguin to believe
> that? I'm running more than a few dozen on a little 1U server without a
> concern for months on end and you just spue off some clap trap like that -
> silly...
The W2K server that I had something to do with a couple of jobs ago an 46
high traffic sites, and went down a little more than once a month.
Its quite true, "jan". This is one of those cases where actual experience
in the matter beats out your random guessing.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will MS get away with this one?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:55:59 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
<snip>
> C64 myself. When I started in business we used Macintosh. Apple
> brought computing to the masses; how does that make a victim out of any
> "little guy"?
>
LOL! Not on this side of the pond they didn't! In the "good old days" the
tendency was to swap the $ sign for a £ sign and then, if it was Apple, add
a fair bit more. That made Apple machines some of the most expensive and
least accessible items around for the "little guy". I wouldn't class this
as bringing computing to the masses - that had to wait for "uncle" Clive
several years later.
Apple did some really good things - don't get me wrong - but most of their
stuff was too "leading edge" to be affordable over in the UK.
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
