On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:44, T. Ribbrock wrote:
I disagree. I still run Linux machines with GUI on 64MB and 48MB and
the only Windows that could match the performance on those machines is
Win95 and lower (even a fresh Win98
Believe it or not, I and Linux got the rap for that bad RAM. That
customer still talks about that crash. lol. Still a good customer.
I have gotten word-of-mouth business but not nearly enough. I must be
doing something wrong :/
quote who=Stephen Kuhn
For me, in a town as small as this -
PROTECTED]
08/20/2003 07:38 PM
Please respond to redhat-list
To: RedHat List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
Dear Tom,
A simple response:
Maintenance, training, and upgrades, needless to say, are factors
both present whether you've got
quote who=Jason Dixon
Another great difference and advantage that Linux box can have over
MS Products are flexibility, stability, and SECURITY (among
others) that MS cannot meet at par with Linux.
Not to defend Microsoft products, but Windows *can* be flexible (sorta),
*can* be stable (at
Hi Aragon:
For whatever reason, I'm just now receiving your posts from Wednesday.
Normally I'd file them away, considering the age of the thread, but I
feel your comments dictate a response.
He did not say that it MS Windows could not do such things. He said it
wasn't on par with Linux.
At 8/21/2003 08:43 -0400, you wrote:
It's for wise people like you to evaluate these facts.
It's wise for you to practice healthy advocacy.
No, he's right. It's wise for people like you to evaluate these facts.
This is out of context; the practice healthy advocacy comment was in
relation to
At 8/21/2003 12:22 -0400, you wrote:
snip
rant
For the love of God, AragonX, you are going to end up in a mailfilter soon
if you leave 250-300 lines of old messages in your posts. Many people, out
of the thousands on this list, still pay for their Internet access by the
minute, and it is
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 23:59, T. Ribbrock wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:44, T. Ribbrock wrote:
I disagree. I still run Linux machines with GUI on 64MB and 48MB and
the only Windows that could match the performance on those
On Friday 22 August 2003 03:17 pm, Cliff Wells wrote:
snip
As an aside, I am a bit curious: if you are running, say Evolution
under WindowMaker (with perhaps a WindowMaker-style theme to make it
look pretty), do you *really* see any performance gain?
In my experience, Yes. I run KMail,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:17:34PM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
[...]
My concern is that people
will advocate Linux as having a faster desktop and then when people try
it (defaulting to GNOME, probably) they find this claim to seem false,
they will doubt other claims made by advocates (security,
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:01:24 -0400
Reuben D. Budiardja [EMAIL PROTECTED] insightfully noted:
On Friday 22 August 2003 03:17 pm, Cliff Wells wrote:
snip
As an aside, I am a bit curious: if you are running, say Evolution
under WindowMaker (with perhaps a WindowMaker-style theme to make it
look
At 8/20/2003 16:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Linux-based office suites are adequate for my needs,
but anyone who considers themselves an MS Office power-user
will likely be sorely disappointed in the Linux alternatives.
I disagree.
I run financial models for a living, and do all of our
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:41:42PM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
[...]
At one time we could boast that Linux could perform well on low-end
hardware but such is no longer the case. Linux Likes RAM! As does any
other OS out there.
Sort of true. For a desktop, I think Linux is a bit
:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
Dear Tom,
A simple response:
Maintenance, training, and upgrades, needless to say, are factors
both present whether you've got Linux box or MS Products. Got the
picture? Nope? It's the CO$T of Ownership having MS Products that
counts.
Another great
While it may well be initially less expensive to install a Linux-based
computer than a Windows-based computer, there are hidden costs associated
with that Linux system which many adherents tend to gloss over (if they
ever mention them at all). Those hidden costs need to be evaluated
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/21/2003 11:11 AM
Please respond to redhat-list
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
While it may well be initially less expensive to install a Linux-based
computer than a Windows-based computer
At 8/21/2003 10:19 -0500, you wrote:
Allow me to summarize the whole point of all my posts on this matter:
While it may well be initially less expensive to install a Linux-based
computer than a Windows-based computer, there are hidden costs associated
with that Linux system which many adherents
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 08:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From an admin point
of view, I want a box out there that my users can't change. When they
make a change and it screws up the computer, it costs my company money for
me to fix it (whether I fix it myself, or hire someone else to do it
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:44, T. Ribbrock wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:41:42PM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
[...]
At one time we could boast that Linux could perform well on low-end
hardware but such is no longer the case. Linux Likes RAM! As does any
other OS out there.
Sort
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 13:21, Rick Warner wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 08:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From an admin point
of view, I want a box out there that my users can't change. When they
make a change and it screws up the computer, it costs my company money for
me to fix it
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
Cheers,
P.S. Tom, you make good arguments although I disagree. But kindly trim
your
posts, would you? Quoting entire other messages and multiple sigs clogs
everyone's bandwidth (and everyone is several
to redhat-list
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 08:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From an admin point
of view, I want a box out there that my users can't change. When they
If they have console access
:58 AM
Please respond to redhat-list
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
We are following this sequence, for example:
(1) Move all network servers (dhcp/dns/ftp/http...), file/print service,
and firewalls to Linux. snip
(2) Move all 25
Bret Hughes wrote:
PS what is the deal with the SO.Big or whatever I have never received
over 2 or 3 of these in a single day and today fprot has found over 25!
Sobig.F is a variant of the sobig virus which uses a multi-threaded smtp
engine. Instead of spreading itself one message at a time to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See, a good example of how an OS migration should be done in an
organization where it makes sense - and where it may actually save money
over a 5-year span.
Thanks!
Tom Hightower
Solutions, Inc
http://www.simas.com
Tom, please do not top-post responses. Bottom post
At 8/21/2003 14:24 -0500, you wrote:
See, a good example of how an OS migration should be done in an
organization where it makes sense - and where it may actually save money
over a 5-year span.
Thank you!
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL
Bret Hughes staggered into view and mumbled:
I could have sworn I got two today that were
not flagged by mailscanner and look legit. Who knows?
A rather interesting thing about these viruses is that they all seem to have a header
that says
X-Mailscanner: Found to be clean
I suspect this is
I just want to relate the happiness I have over the successful
installation of yet another RedHat server for a small business customer
of mine;
They were in need of a low-cost, dependable server machine to be used as
a file server and a printer server - a machine on which they could load
a
Are you commission mate:-) ?
lol
Marty
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 7:49 AM
Subject: Sweet Success
I just want to relate the happiness I have over the successful
installation of yet another RedHat
]
cc:
Subject:Sweet Success
I just want to relate the happiness I have over the successful
installation of yet another RedHat server for a small business customer
of mine;
They were in need of a low-cost, dependable server machine to be used as
a file server and a printer server
snip
They were in need of a low-cost, dependable server machine to be used as
a file server and a printer server - a machine on which they could load
a high-end architectural/accounting package;
Question: We tried last year to use samba as a print server for a bunch of
Win2K client machines
Have more fun with your mobile - add polyphonic ringtones, java games, celebrity voicemails and loads more! Click here for phone fun.
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Make your messages more exciting with MSN Messenger V6. Download it for FREE today!
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 06:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- who will maintain the OS and other various software updates?
Same could be asked of MS products. Case in point: in 2000 there were
over 50 IIS patches; since IIS has been the entry point of some of the
nastiest worms (remember the Code
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 07:56, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
Question: We tried last year to use samba as a print server for a bunch of
Win2K client machines on a domain. We could get Samba to authenticate to
the WinNT domain, no prob, but we couldn't get the print server to see any
of the special
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 10:28, Rick Warner wrote:
After the move we had over a year without any downtime before I was laid
off.
And this would be the fundamental flaw with Linux servers ;)
--
Cliff Wells, Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 10:28, Rick Warner wrote:
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 06:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- I have a Windows NT Server, used for user network authentication and
print server. It's been in place for more than 5 years, less downtime
than the web server. Again, it's used as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 2:15:14 PM, Cliff wrote:
In the argument over TCO, several reports have shown that the TCO for a
single Linux server is slightly higher than a single Windows server.
Most of those reports disregarded the fact that one
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 12:31, Ronald W. Heiby wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 2:15:14 PM, Cliff wrote:
In the argument over TCO, several reports have shown that the TCO for a
single Linux server is slightly higher than a single Windows
Wow, I never thought about it, but it makes sense Cliff. :D
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:09, Cliff Wells wrote:
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 10:28, Rick Warner wrote:
After the move we had over a year without any downtime before I was laid
off.
And this would be the fundamental flaw with Linux
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:09, Cliff Wells wrote:
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 10:28, Rick Warner wrote:
After the move we had over a year without any downtime before I was laid
off.
And this would be the fundamental flaw with Linux servers ;)
No joke. I had an Exchange consultant
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 14:45, Cliff Wells wrote:
IMHO, that probably has more to do with the nature of the Linux admin
than the OS in question. Admins who choose Linux tend to have a bit of
the hacker nature whereas the average Windows admin includes the
clueless who have just enough
PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 06:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- who will maintain the OS and other various software updates?
Same could be asked of MS products. Case in point: in 2000 there were
over 50 IIS patches; since IIS has been
I whole heartedly agree. I'm constantly in search of new clients because
once the server is installed, there isn't anything else for me to bill
for. The last time I had any server downtime at any of my clients was 3
years ago. And that was a new server install that had faulty RAM...
quote
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 14:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ignoring recommended patches - whether from Redhat,
Microsoft, IBM, or whomever - will bite you in the CPU one day.
Yes, but with Linux and other *NIX OS's I can install most
patches on a running system without a need to shut it
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:56, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
Question: We tried last year to use samba as a print server for a bunch of
Win2K client machines on a domain. We could get Samba to authenticate to
the WinNT domain, no prob, but we couldn't get the print server to see any
of the special
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me say upfront that I like Linux in general, and RedHat in particular.
And (heresy!) I like MS products.
2 questions:
-- what about the architectural/accounting package?
The company that sold it to us installed it on the network
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:42, AragonX wrote:
I whole heartedly agree. I'm constantly in search of new clients because
once the server is installed, there isn't anything else for me to bill
for. The last time I had any server downtime at any of my clients was 3
years ago. And that was a new
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:30, Bret Hughes wrote:
It will be interesting to see if this trend continues in
the wake of all the redhat-config-* tools that make it pretty easy to
get a box going even though it may be mis-configured and potentially
less secure than it ought to be. Of course that
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 19:22, Martin Moss wrote:
Are you commission mate:-) ?
lol
Marty
Are you making me an offer? (grin)
--
Thu Aug 21 08:30:01 EST 2003
08:30:01 up 3 days, 10:56, 1 user, load average: 0.19, 0.22, 0.16
-
|
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 14:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for my downtime: aside from upgrading the web server software, an hour
or two tops. Include the web server software upgrade - 8 hours at most.
My other servers - a couple of hours at most. Over 5 years. To borrow a
phrase from Ron
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 17:33, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:30, Bret Hughes wrote:
It will be interesting to see if this trend continues in
the wake of all the redhat-config-* tools that make it pretty easy to
get a box going even though it may be mis-configured and
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 16:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick,
Never once has it been suggested that I recompile the Windows OS to get
maximum performance from my computer; many's the time I've read
re-compile the kernel in response to a question about Linux performance.
I read stories
/2003 05:41 PM
Please respond to redhat-list
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Sweet Success
I get the distinct feeling that while you are trying to be neutral your
admitted lack of Linux knowledge prevents you from being as impartial as
you think you
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 19:21, Bret Hughes wrote:
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 16:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never once has it been suggested that I recompile the Windows OS to get
maximum performance from my computer; many's the time I've read
re-compile the kernel in response to a question
:Re: Sweet Success
Sorry but that compile bit pissed me off.
Bret
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 19:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Such was not my intent. My apologies to all whom I offended.
You pissed me off too, but only with your top-posting.
P.S. Just kidding. ;-)
--
Jason Dixon, RHCE
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
--
redhat-list mailing
Stephen Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/20/2003 01:49 AM
Please respond to redhat-list
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Sweet Success
I just want to relate the happiness I have over the successful
installation of yet another
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 20:38, Eduardo A. dela Rosa wrote:
Maintenance, training, and upgrades, needless to say, are factors
both present whether you've got Linux box or MS Products. Got the
picture? Nope? It's the CO$T of Ownership having MS Products that
counts.
Eduardo, I'm glad you don't
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 17:44, Jason Dixon wrote:
Actually, I've been rather embarrassed at the volume of errata that Red
Hat has released over the last couple of years. Is this a bad thing?
Only if the administrator hasn't maintained the system properly.
A good chunk of these errata have
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
snip
They were in need of a low-cost, dependable server machine to be used as
a file server and a printer server - a machine on which they could load
a high-end architectural/accounting package;
Question: We tried last year to use samba as
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 18:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Such was not my intent. My apologies to all whom I offended.
Nah It is I who should apologize. Your post was really pretty well
presented even if I don't agree with every premise in your argument.
Too many things going on today and my
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 10:16, Bret Hughes wrote:
And to top it off I get messages from other mailserver telling me that
the mail I sent has been found to contain a virus. Of course it is
someone else spoofing the sender but it still irritates me.
I've seen those too. The ones I got appear
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 22:16, Bret Hughes wrote:
PS what is the deal with the SO.Big or whatever I have never received
over 2 or 3 of these in a single day and today fprot has found over 25!
Be thankful you're not on any of the OpenBSD lists. The worm has the
nasty side-effect of grabbing an
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 21:18, Ed Greshko wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 10:16, Bret Hughes wrote:
And to top it off I get messages from other mailserver telling me that
the mail I sent has been found to contain a virus. Of course it is
someone else spoofing the sender but it still irritates
65 matches
Mail list logo
