Linux-Advocacy Digest #440, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 23:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Yet another IIS security bug ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (Roy Culley)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
OT Movies (mlw)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: OT Movies ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft's Activation scheme for Office 2000 (Roy Culley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:02:24 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Can't speak of uptime, because it's usually to expensive (and long) to
>> > benchmark those.
>> > But according to TCP.ORG, in the unclustered category, Win2K win on
>> > price/performance.
>> > On unclustered/clustered category, Win2K wins *both* price/performance &
>> > performance.
>>
>> Support is more expensive on UNIX boxes, however, that is off set my the
>> reduced amount of downtime, hence the reason why the New Zealand
>> financial system runs on big irons.
>
>Interesting, I keep hearing about TCO for Unix being lower than TCO for
>Windows.
>I can't comment about downtime, I know that any Win2K box that I've seen was
>up, and *stayed* up, as long as its owner wanted it to.
>The only exceptions were driver problems.
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
We have a winner.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:38:04 -0700
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>>
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>> > A friend of the family needs a little help in the court system. Do
>> > you or anybody know of the use of computers in court to prove one way
>> > or the other who is at fault in a traffic accident? This particular
>> > approach would use the laws of physics to determine the speed of the
>> > offender. I would think that the side of the car bashed in by an SUV
>> > could give clues to the approximate speed of the SUV.
Most of the commercially available accident reconstruction software is
little more than AutoCAD with a built-in calculator. Useless in court
without expert testimony to back it up, and not always admissable. Do
your friend a favor, and have him ask his attorney to contract with a
professional expert witness who does this stuff. The police probably
won't have anything more sophisticated than Crash-Zone printouts, but they
will be able to depose an investigator with years and years of experience
who knows how to present his findings effectively, and can stand up to
tough examination in court. Your friend will have to match that, and even
the most elegant software alone won't do it.
The URL below is a good starting place to look for expert witnesses in
your area. Your friend's attorney should already have a list on file.
http://expertpages.com/experts/failureanalysis.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:18:34 GMT
On Thu, 10 May 2001 23:03:59 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Like what?
>
Look at the case L. Hollar cited. It gives the context for the reason why
the statute was modified. Lee also posted an excerpt from the legislative
history that where Congress explicitly indicated that they had that case
in mind when they modified the statute.
I think noting the purpose that Congress says they had in mind, and
reading the plain meaning of the statute ought to be enough to convince
most people. In any case, it would be very persuasive to a federal
district court judge.
One thousand dollars seems like a lot of copying when you are discussing
music. As you say that would be several dozens of cds. But $1000 is
a trivially small number of copies of something like Microsoft Office,
or AutoCad.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:47:25 -0700
Yeah, I just looked at the latest OS graphs on Attrition.org. No doubt
about it, W2K and IIS are setting new records.
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:50:00 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
You need to tell this to the Senator.
> Lessee. What has Microsoft given us?
>
> - Clippy, the talking paper clip. Such technical innovation!
> And now they've given him a home life and a personality, as well!
> He even tries to drink beer -- not too successfully.
> http://www.microsoft.com/office/clippy/
That page and its linked pages are a freakin' scream. I guess
Microsoft feels that the only consumers that will want Office
XP are the tiny tots.
> - Outlook Express Post On Top Ignoring Internet/Usenet Conventions.
It also ignores Microsoft conventions. For example, Ctrl-F does not
find text.
> - Backslashes and single-letter drive names! They could have at least
> implemented something like the Amiga's logical names, which could
> take almost anything left of a colon.
Hey, DOS was their bread-and-butter!
> - Folders. They're not directories, they're folders. Learn the
> new MicrosoftSpeak(tm). (If I wanted a folder, I'd hire someone
> to do my laundry...)
We want only Microsoft formats and terms to be used.
> - Microsoft Word, the undocumented industry standard.
That is pretty weird how that happened. Especially since
it is horrid with large documents.
> - SMB, the other undocumented industry standard.
Heck, it's easy to hack.
> - TELNET. No, they didn't invent it. They *broke* it.
Hey, they're the standard. They leveraged their way
onto the desktop, and they're trying the same tactics
for the server.
Bastards.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 03:12:25 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
[snip]
> Will they succeed in leveraging their monopoly? Stay tuned for a few more
> years and find out.
I think 2001 may well be the year that makes or breaks Microsoft. WinXP out
in October with a huge marketing campaign. The xbox due this year. A hard
push to get enterprise customers to upgrade before 1st October this year:
ttp://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18884.html
They are struggling. Sales of W2K (hence the pressure on enterprise
customers) and WinME have been well below what they expected. W2K may
be the best OS they have ever produced but companies just aren't
upgrading as after all the pain with NT4 it is now well established
and reasonably stable if not secure. The comapny I work for with
over 20,000 hosts (the vast majority NT4 desktops) certainly have
no plans to upgrade to W2K or XP when it is released.
Of course Microsoft are not going to just disappear. But if they fail
in 2 of the above then they will be on a steep slippery slope. They
are being investigated for including non-core business revenue in
their staements for their core business for the past 3 quarters. The
downturn in the PC market should hit Microsoft more than any other
company. They have relied on the high growth in PC sales and their
constant upgrade cycle to support their growth requirements. With
the downturn in PC sales and the low adoption of W2K and WinME how
can they appear almost immune to this general market downturn? They
are using income from non core business investments to hide their
poor core business results. Hence the investigation.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 11 May 2001 21:08:07 -0500
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dgeto$5kv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :>
> :>
> :> Jan Johanson wrote:
> :>
> :> > Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
> :>
> :> Yes, because unix systems stay up longer. Remember the "awesome" MTTF
> :> that Windows 2000 exhibits? LOL.
>
> : Yes, I do. And W2K stays up every bit as long as unix systems.I know you
> : won't admit it or can't imagine it but that's your problem not ours.
>
>
> Linux and UNIX systems are capable of uptimes considerably longer than
> the total time W2K has existed.
Of course that is true, we all know that. And that will always continue to
be possible because both linux and unix predate Unix - get it? However, what
you fail to address is that now that W2K is here it runs as long as wants
to. It is capable of the same uptimes as linux. Put a w2k system and linux
system side by side and let them run. They'll both run as long as you let
them. Simple.
>
> You are making one of the most fundamental mistakes that can be made
> in debate or any other kind of confrontation. You are attacking an
> enemy at the point where it is the strongest and you are the weakest.
> That just isn't good strategy.
No, your mistake is the typical one. Judging W2K by windows 95 standards.
Wrong entirely. If you had actually seen a copy of W2K perhaps you'd begin
to have a clue. While previous versions of Windows may not have had steller
uptimes - W2K does. No amount of denial you can foist upon yourself will
change that simple fact.
>
> If you must advocate Windows over Linux, my advice would be to get to
> know both systems as well as you can. You may find that your
> allegiances change, but even if they do not, at least you'll be in a
> position to advocate Windows in a more credible fashion.
you might take your own advice - had you ever even run w2k before you'd know
how dated and completely inaccurate your attacks on w2k uptimes are. Look,
face it, W2K is stable and runs as long as any other OS. If you deny this
then you are a fool and proving it. Consider, if I said Linux crashes as
much as Windows 95 does we'd both laugh. We know it's untrue. However, you
are saying to me the same thing. You are trying to propogate the FUD/lie
that W2K is not capable of steller uptimes. Well, it is. Period. Get over
it - I know it hurts to lose the ability to attack MS from that direction
any more but you must learn to accept defeat and reality and move along...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 11 May 2001 21:10:04 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here are a couple of Win2K servers that stayed up for a long time.
> >
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=partnering3.microsoft.com
> > 244
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=download.windowsbeta.microsoft.com
> > 216
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=msdnisv.microsoft.com
> > 189
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=corporate.windowsupdate.microsoft.c
> > om
> > 189
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=esl.one.microsoft.com
> > 184
> They are all clusters. Now, get, one, lone server loaded with Win2k
> Server, and then see the uptime.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
I have one lone server loaded with W2K Server that has been running non-stop
since Feb 17th 2000. It was rebooted one single time when SP1 was released,
intentionally obviously, and never since. It has 100% uptime during the
first period and continues 100% at this time.
Are you starting to understand? W2K is reliable.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 11 May 2001 21:12:04 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
> > >
> > > Yes, because unix systems stay up longer. Remember the "awesome" MTTF
> > > that Windows 2000 exhibits? LOL.
> >
> > Yes, I do. And W2K stays up every bit as long as unix systems.I know you
> > won't admit it or can't imagine it but that's your problem not ours.
> Why does Microsoft rely so heavily on clustering technology?
Reliablity during hardware failures? Performance (you keep saying clusters
when if you knew the difference between clustering and load balancing you'd
suddenly realize it's load balancing their using, NOT clustering!)
>when you
> can get a big iron like a SunFire w/ 16 x Sparc III CPUS, or an z900
> mainframe that can stay up for years, requiring little or no
> maintainance. I would be quite interested in a Windows 2000 Server vs.
> SUN Sunfire midframe, without clustering technology, and see the uptimes
> of them.
Be my guest, you'll find out what we already know. Both will still be up,
baring a hardware failure out of the softwares hands.
I've been talking OS, not hardware so try to stick to the subject eh?
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 11 May 2001 21:12:07 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, because unix systems stay up longer. Remember the "awesome"
MTTF
> > > > > that Windows 2000 exhibits? LOL.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I do. And W2K stays up every bit as long as unix systems.I know
you
> > > > won't admit it or can't imagine it but that's your problem not ours.
> > > Why does Microsoft rely so heavily on clustering technology? when you
> > > can get a big iron like a SunFire w/ 16 x Sparc III CPUS, or an z900
> > > mainframe that can stay up for years, requiring little or no
> > > maintainance. I would be quite interested in a Windows 2000 Server
vs.
> > > SUN Sunfire midframe, without clustering technology, and see the
uptimes
> > > of them.
> >
> > Can't speak of uptime, because it's usually to expensive (and long) to
> > benchmark those.
> > But according to TCP.ORG, in the unclustered category, Win2K win on
> > price/performance.
> > On unclustered/clustered category, Win2K wins *both* price/performance &
> > performance.
> If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times.
>
> TPC is not a universal benchmark. People must be paying members to submit
> results. Because of this only certain configurations ever get listed, and
thus
> is not usable as a fair and equal benchmark.
>
> Second, the OS has little to do with TPC results. It is mostly database
and
> configuration.
>
> TPC results have no place in an OS discussion.
Interesting how often TPC results were mentioned BEFORE W2K took the lead...
hmmm....
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT Movies
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 22:18:04 -0400
I would love, just once, a movie show a real data center. Cluttered wires,
non-color coordinated boxes. Things impossible to find, not because of
security, but because of simple complexity.
That would be cool.
Like I always say, poor science fiction is due to bad writers. A good mystery
writer would not dare describe a gun or a poison without a lot of research. Why
do we give writers that use technical complications as part of the plot such
leeway into stupidity?
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 11 May 2001 21:14:03 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Can't speak of uptime, because it's usually to expensive (and long)
to
> >> > benchmark those.
> >> > But according to TCP.ORG, in the unclustered category, Win2K win on
> >> > price/performance.
> >> > On unclustered/clustered category, Win2K wins *both*
price/performance &
> >> > performance.
> >>
> >> Support is more expensive on UNIX boxes, however, that is off set my
the
> >> reduced amount of downtime, hence the reason why the New Zealand
> >> financial system runs on big irons.
> >
> >Interesting, I keep hearing about TCO for Unix being lower than TCO for
> >Windows.
> >I can't comment about downtime, I know that any Win2K box that I've seen
was
> >up, and *stayed* up, as long as its owner wanted it to.
> >The only exceptions were driver problems.
>
> *Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
>
> We have a winner.
Had you ever used a computer before you'd realize how stupid that sounds.
Cause once you get the right driver in place, guess what... it works and
stays working. So, by installing a certified driver FIRST you never have a
driver problem.
Are you trying to suggest that other OSes are _immune_ to driver problems?
Never seen a unix box hosed due to horrible drivers? I have ...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 11 May 2001 21:15:02 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
> >On unclustered/clustered category, Win2K wins *both* price/performance &
> >performance.
>
> By pitting only clustered Windows against only unclustered Linux,
> mostly.
given that linux has never posted a single TPC result - you are wrong,
again.
>
> I'm willing to be if you give me the url, it will be the very same page
> of numbers I looked at months ago.
gee, www.tpc.org?
You're just unaware of how sound a
> spanking Erik got when he brought it up back then.
Go ahead, try to spank - you'll only be spanking your own monkey in the
end...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 11 May 2001 21:16:14 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 10 May 2001 19:46:10
> >"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >>
> >> > Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
> >>
> >> Yes, because unix systems stay up longer. Remember the "awesome" MTTF
> >> that Windows 2000 exhibits? LOL.
> >
> >Yes, I do. And W2K stays up every bit as long as unix systems.I know you
> >won't admit it or can't imagine it but that's your problem not ours.
>
> Evidence?
Sure - the thousands of W2K boxes doing it as we speak. The dozens of such
servers I work around daily. The almost 100 of them in the colocation center
we use that haven't been touched in... who knows how long...
<snip denial>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:59:55 GMT
On Thu, 10 May 2001 23:03:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The key is there is, in fact, nothing in copyright law which actually
>prevents this. Using private licensing contracts to gain access to
>copyrighted works, MS could conceivably (but obviously not feasibly)
>make just the claim you propose.
I think there are some limits to what a state court can enforce
without being found to have usurped the Congress's power to regulate
copyright. Some license provisions might be found to do so. Among the
most problematic areas might be provisions against reverse engineering
and provisions limiting what would otherwise be fair use. I would
expect that some courts would consider license provisions which limit
the copy owner's (read licensee if you will) uses also to be
unenforceable.
I have no idea where the line might be drawn, but for an example of
state law getting slapped down in federal court, see
Vault Cord v. Quaid Software 847 F.2d 255
Here is a quote from the holding by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals:
"The provision in Louisiana's License Act, which permits a software
producer to prohibit the adaptation of its licensed computer program
by decompilation or disassembly, conflicts with the rights of computer
program owners under § 117 and clearly "touches upon an area" of
federal copyright law. For this reason, and the reasons set forth
by the district court, we hold that at least this provision of
Louisiana's License Act is preempted by federal law, and thus that the
restriction in Vault's license agreement against decompilation or
disassembly is unenforceable."
Ultimately this is a side issue. If MS could limit other developers
from distributing software that links with software as you say, they
would do it by putting the appropriate wording in their license.
If the FSF would put limits on what users could link with GPL'd code
in their license, this argument would change from being about
copyright law, to being about whether users could be bound to a
license without consideration. But the FSF didn't put any user
restrictions in the GPL, and in fact explicitly disclaimed any.
>It isn't copyright law which prevents MS from doing that. It is
>anti-trust law. If you want to accuse the FSF, the GPL, or Linux
>developers and vendors of being anti-competitive, you can try, but I
>don't think you're going to get very far.
I didn't even accuse MS of doing that.
>What you don't seem to understand is, until someone takes the FSF or a
>GPL author to court, and proves this private agreement unlawful, this IS
>the way the world works. Aren't you glad you have the Sherman Act to
>prevent MS from using their copyright to control the entire industry?
Well, yes, but as you say, they would not be using copyright, but rather
they would use binding licensing. But as I tried to point out, the
implications extend beyond Microsoft. If the FSF is correct, you can't
write software that interoperates too efficiently with any system without
getting permission.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 11 May 2001 21:19:03 -0500
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dgfoe$623$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Dan Kegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> Yes, but for the moment, Microsoft is a nose ahead. I'm really looking
> :> forward to comparable results for the X-15 web server, a userspace
> :> Linux web server said to be 5% faster than Tux at single-CPU SPECweb99
> : tests.
> :>
>
> : I wonder how it'll fair against IIS6 which has a kernel mode option to
> : increase performance. I can't release beta information on Win2002 server
but
> : I can safe, it's definately faster than IIS5.
>
>
> At serving static content, or dynamic?
Dynamic - delivering static content is now in the domain of the caching
front ends...
>
> If the latter, than how do you ensure that we are comparing apples
> against apples, and not oranges, grapefruits, or fish?
cause I used the same benchmark on both. doh.
>
> If the former, who cares, since the Web consists largely of dynamic
> content at this point?
>
> Don't you realize that Linux and FreeBSD and other server platforms
> will be improving during that time as well?
sure - it's expected.
>
> And what does it matter anyway, when even a modest single-processor NT
> or Linux box can saturate more network bandwidth than 99.9% of all
> organizations have available to begin with?
given that more and more companies are running from colocation centers that
have multi-gigabytes of bandwidth available - I don't think people think
that way. But I know that those used to talking in DSL and cable modem terms
think of bandwidth as a limitation.
<snip speech>
> And *that*, my friend, is why NT/W2K consistently lose market share
> over time while Apache running on Linux or UNIX consistently gains.
Yawn... the battle has hardly been fought and already W2K outperforms and
out sells unix; who cares if more mom & pop ISPs run a zillion static
domains on their apache servers and bloat the netcraft braindead domain name
count. People who are doing actual work on useful content know what their
servers run and it sure ain't free beer OSes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT Movies
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 02:20:02 GMT
On Fri, 11 May 2001 22:18:04 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I would love, just once, a movie show a real data center. Cluttered wires,
>non-color coordinated boxes. Things impossible to find, not because of
>security, but because of simple complexity.
I don't see data centers like that. Where do you work?
I'm in Chase Bank, Computer Associates, Barnes and Nobel, Sloan
Kettering, Canon, Arrow, the IRS, FAA, etc and I don't see stuff like
that.
Things are quite organized in fact.
Of course Linux is mostly non existant as well but real UNIX is alive
and kicking. Not too much NT there either except on the desktops.
>That would be cool.
What would be cool would be actually seeing an IBM 3420 Tape Drive
running a tape in the correct direction for a change.
>Like I always say, poor science fiction is due to bad writers. A good mystery
>writer would not dare describe a gun or a poison without a lot of research. Why
>do we give writers that use technical complications as part of the plot such
>leeway into stupidity?
Maybe you could point them to all of these defect data centers you
seem to know of?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: Microsoft's Activation scheme for Office 2000
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 03:21:28 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeffrey L. Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I was originally notified by the MS staff that I had Office installed
> on 7 computers, then they changed that and stated that it was only 3.
> I am still disappointed that there is erroneous information attached
> to my name, and I do not want to fight with customers service each
> time I have to reinstall. I originally installed Office 2000 on my
> Gateway that I had for 2 years, and 6 months ago, I removed it from
> that computer and put it on my new machine. My new computer had a
> hard drive fail and Maxtor sent me a new one. Also, I upgraded the
> video card. My Gateway computer is also on a small 2 computer
> network, and it has been demoted to playing kids games for my son and
> additional testing purposes. It is not a computer that requires a
> full Office suite, and Office 2000 was never installed on that machine
> since I upgraded my main computer. They made this retroactive to
> Office 2000, and I would have stayed with Office 97 had I known this
> would happen.
Isn't it the case though that by buying a new computer you must buy
all their SW again for that computer? Or at the very least crawl to
Microsoft stating that the original computer is no longer being used
and hope that they believe you. Microsoft are hurting because PC
sales are down and people are just not upgrading in the numbers they
require to keep their sales revenue increasing quarter by quarter.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
