Linux-Advocacy Digest #543, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (GreyCloud)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! (GreyCloud)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 02:57:37 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001 14:48:20
> [...]
> >> These would be mathematical units, integers of time, are they not?
> >
> >That would depend on whether we were discussing discrete or continuous
> >mathematics. I didn't specify, and the reason I didn't is that it does
> >not matter what the units are. For your sake I will restate anyway.
> >There are functions defined over the real numbers that are defined by
> >an "if-else" test. I gave an example of one (that is, a "purely
> >mathematical construct" that contains an if-else test).
>
> I am still quite sure you are mistaken. Perhaps there are mathematical
> systems for dealing with something other than algorithms, but there are
> no 'if-then' tests in a purely *computational process*. The term does,
> way back when, derive from the act of calculating; the application of
> computers to *logic* is a relatively new invention.
Max, you're making a fool of yourself, because you don't have the
relevant coursework on the subject.
http://ECE.www.ecn.purdue.edu/ECE/Undergraduates/Courses/coursede.pdf
as a bare minimum, you need
EE301 Signals and Systems
and
EE369 Discrete Mathematics for Computer Engineering
to beat Bob on this topic.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 23:57:10 -0700
"." wrote:
>
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." wrote:
> >>
> >> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > "." wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I have. NVIDIA drivers w/ gforce2 and kernel 2.4-20 with certian 3-D games.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kernel panic, unrecoverable, hard lock.
> >>
> >> > And so you use binary proprietary drivers - and this proves what about
> >> > the quality of 2.4 exactly ?
> >>
> >> I'm not saying that the 2.4 kernel sucks, you bitchass nutslap. I'm saying
> >> that I can get it to lock consistently. I can also get the FreeBSD kernel
> >> to lock, the BeOS kernel, windows NT 4.0, 2000, 98, ME, XP, and also Solaris
> >> 7 and 8, HP/UX and SCO. A lockable kernel doesnt mean its a piece of shit, it
> >> only means that I could get it to do something that you insinuated might not
> >> be possible. :)
> >>
>
> > How do you go about locking up say Solaris then??
>
> Easiest way is to fill up swap on bland installs...:)
>
> Ive also done it with poorly written opengl applications.
>
> -----.
>
> --
> "George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
>
> ---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
I see now. That was one argument I got into with another UNIX admin
type...
He didn't like the way Linux has one partition for everything to
installed in...
I called it a myth and found a web site that mentions this... I didn't
really see the reasons for having the core programs in one slice and
then applications in another slice and then users in another slice... it
cuts down on efficient disk useage. That seemed to smoke him more than
anything else and started ranting about security, which I mentioned that
slices were a carry over from the days of yore of small hard drives.
He spun out of control after that. :-))
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 23:53:03 -0700
"." wrote:
>
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." wrote:
> >>
> >> kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > . wrote:
> >>
> >> >> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>> "." wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I have. NVIDIA drivers w/ gforce2 and kernel 2.4-20 with certian 3-D
> >> >>>> games.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Kernel panic, unrecoverable, hard lock.
> >> >>
> >> >>> And so you use binary proprietary drivers - and this proves what about
> >> >>> the quality of 2.4 exactly ?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not saying that the 2.4 kernel sucks, you bitchass nutslap. I'm
> >> >> saying
> >> >> that I can get it to lock consistently. I can also get the FreeBSD kernel
> >> >> to lock, the BeOS kernel, windows NT 4.0, 2000, 98, ME, XP, and also
> >> >> Solaris
> >> >> 7 and 8, HP/UX and SCO. A lockable kernel doesnt mean its a piece of
> >> >> shit, it only means that I could get it to do something that you
> >> >> insinuated might not
> >> >> be possible. :)
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > There is not a damn thing the kernel can do since you loaded a binary only
> >> > module into it. I have an nvidia card to and don't use nvidias driver
> >> > because they couldn't program themselves out of a wet paper bag.
> >>
> >> So you're wasting your nvidia card on crappy 2d bullshit. What a knowledgable
> >> user you are...
> >>
> >> > Their
> >> > driver is horribly unstable compared to everything else on my system. When
> >> > I used their driver before the system would crash once a week or so and it
> >> > was that damn driver every time. As soon as I removed it all the crashes
> >> > went away.
> >>
> >> Actually a new version was released last week specifically for the 2.4 kernel.
> >>
> >> > In all my years of using linux I have only had the os crash for 2 reasons.
> >> > I the nvidia driver, 2 failed hardware. Kind of hard for the os to keep
> >> > running if the cpu fails etc.
> >>
> >> Then you havent been running it *nearly* hard enough. Ive crashed just about
> >> every unix still in existance except AIX.
> >>
> >> -----.
> >>
> >> --
> >> "George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
> >>
> >> ---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
>
> > What were you doing wrong then?? (crashing unixes that is)
>
> Screwing around. Its fun.
>
> -----.
>
> --
> "George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
>
> ---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
Ok. :-)
I just have to look cross-eyed to make windows crash. :-))
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:01:46 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > If it's old news then Charlies right... you've been spreading FUD for
> > quite a while now.
> > But charlie has already provided you Trolls the correctly dated articles
> > ... and you still can't read.
>
> No, apparently Yahoo fucked up an reposted an old article as new. If you
> notice, the article does not appear on the front page.
>
> This *IS* the > 1 year old vulnerability, and it wasn't a backdoor, despite
> MS originally thinking it was. They later retracted it saying that the
> message was not a password at all, but simply embedded into the code while a
> buffer overrun vulnerability did in fact exist.
>
> Yahoo is the *ONLY* news service that has this story, and guess what? It's
> disappeared. It no longer is on the link. You'd think someone, even the
> register would have picked this up. But they didn't. In fact, the register
> posted a story about how Yahoo fucked up.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18975.html
Then ya better tell that to Sun Microsystems then. They say its a new
one!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:03:19 -0700
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <TN0M6.56211$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I know, the Open Source promise is a strong one, but in the real world,
> > > >it just doesn't pan out properly.
> > > >
> > > >-c
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hey DICKHEAD! Or should we call you the GERMAN saying DICHHEAD!
> > >
> > > http://slashdot.org/articles/01/05/14/1858201.shtml
> > >
> > > Looks like Microsoft has admitted to another back door in IIS!
> >
> > Um... slashdot is stupider than yahoo - this is an over 1 year old story
> > regurgitated on yahoo (and since deleted) that has been taken care of ages
> > ago. There is no back door in IIS. This is old news.
>
> Please use correct English syntax next time, there is no such thing as
> "stupider".
>
> Matthew Gardiner
(Sigh!) Goes to show how bad the education system in the US has been in
a decline.
Embarassing to say the least!
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 03:06:00 -0400
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:19 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You seem to have missed the point, which has nothing to do with
> >conditional processing, but translation tables. What's your problem?
>
> My "problem" is that I'm amusing myself by getting you to make self-
> contradictory statements.
>
> >>You actually had it right in the first place (when you said "an
> >>algorithm is a recursive computational procedure with a finite number
> >>of steps").
> >
> >No shit. Really?
>
> Really. Note that the definition makes no mention of what the steps might
> be. "Use y as an index into table a" would be perfectly valid step
> according to the definition, as would "kick Max in the head three times".
>
> >>You should have left it at that.
> >
> >I did. I don't understand why you seem to be saying that you have come
> >up with any opposite result.
>
> You said that if some procedure contains a translation table, then it is not
> an algorithm. Now you are trying to wriggle out of that and I'm amusing
> myself by egging you on.
>
> >As I suspected, you were really only trying to pick an argument over a
> >quibbling detail. Turns out, as happens so often with Erik himself,
> >that you didn't realize that it was your mistake, not mine, that was the
> >foundation of the quibble.
>
> As it so often turns out, you don't have a clue what you are talking about
> and when called on it you argue in ever-narrowing circles, veering into
> metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, until finally you get around to agreeing with the
> other person. At which point you declare victory.
>
> >You should have simply asked some questions, and I'd have cleared up
> >your confusion much more quickly.
>
> Ok. Please give a precise definition of what you mean by "algorithm".
>
> > Instead you went off track into this "if-else allows translation tables
> > to magically become algorithms" bullshit because you wanted me to be
> > wrong.
>
> My position is, and always has been, that translation tables can be part of
> an algorithm. That, in fact, many common algorithms are either defined or
> implemented in terms of such tables.
isalpha (int c)
isupper (int c)
islower (int c)
isdigit (int c)
isxdigit(int c)
isalnum (int c)
isspace (int c)
ispunct (int c)
isprint (int c)
isgraph (int c)
iscntrl (int c)
isascii (int c)
toascii (int c)
tolower (int c)
toupper (int c)
long strtol(char *str, char **ptr, int base)
double atof (char *str)
int atoi (char *str)
long atol (char *str)
double strtod(char *str, char **ptr)
> The "if-else" business was merely an
> attempt to show you why saying that tables can't be part of an algorithm is
> absurd. It was fun to watch you try to wriggle out of that by turning to
> mathematics, a field you are clearly unfamiliar with.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 03:07:50 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001 14:53:52
> >On 13 May 2001 23:34:36 -0500, Chad Everett
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >>A translation table is a form of lookup table. The DES uses lookup
> >> >>tables. Does this make it not an alogorithm? The Knuth-Morris-Pratt
> >> >>string search uses a lookup table too. In spite of that, Knuth thinks
> >> >>it is an algorithm. Is he wrong?
> >
> >> Are the lookup tables known by everyone?
> >
> >Some are fixed (and known), some are computed at runtime. Max asserted
> >in his other post that this makes a difference.
>
> It is not that which makes a difference, no. Of the ones which are
> 'fixed', are they shortcuts for mathematical calculations, or are they
> arbitrary translations of one token set into another? That is what
> makes the difference. As I have said all along, and only this is really
> what I have said, however often I might have sounded like I was claiming
> some other thing about algorithms, "translation tables need not apply".
> Since some lookup tables are only like the old logarithm tables used by
> human computers, they are really a way of calculating something. And,
> of course, since any arbitrary table can be expressed mathematically (or
> how else can you get it into the form of 1s and 0s needed by a silicon
> computer?) you can 'cheat' the definition that way, if your goal is to
> argue away the very concept of an algorithm, so that you can
> conveniently apply the term to things which aren't algorithms.
>
> Translation tables are not algorithms, and no algorithms contain
> translation tables. 'Lookup tables' might be something else altogether,
> and seems at this point to be trolling.
isalpha
isupper
islower
isdigit
isxdigit
isalnum
isspace
ispunct
isprint
isgraph
iscntrl
isascii
toascii
tolower
toupper
All of the above are merely implemented by lookup tables....
they are DEFINED by them.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:09:28 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <3b01a496$0$2882$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Johansan wrote:
> > >I had to blink and look twice: Linux has finally made it's appearence at
> > >tpc.org and it's in first place!
> > >
> > >http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
> > >
> > >There you have it, a linux powered result of 2733 smoking past the 1699
> > >result posted for a W2K box.
> > >
> > >Well, I extend my hand in congratulations to the penguins for their stunning
> > >entry into the world of high end database benchmarks. I'm certain suddenly
> > >the TPC will be in style again and accepted for all to see.
> > >
> >
> > {rediculous bullcrap deleted}
> >
> > Yes Jan. As we already knew, Linux blows the crap out of W2k,
> > whether it be a single PC in single processor mode, SMP contest,
> > or a CLUSTER.
>
> What? It took twice the hardware and 4 times the cost for Linux to
> eek out a small percentage of performance over a single Win2K box.
>
> Linux has yet to show up anywhere near the real metric: the TPC-C.
>
> -c
Mere FUD!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:10:34 -0700
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <3b01a496$0$2882$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Johansan wrote:
> > >I had to blink and look twice: Linux has finally made it's appearence at
> > >tpc.org and it's in first place!
> > >
> > >http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
> > >
> > >There you have it, a linux powered result of 2733 smoking past the 1699
> > >result posted for a W2K box.
> > >
> > >Well, I extend my hand in congratulations to the penguins for their
> stunning
> > >entry into the world of high end database benchmarks. I'm certain
> suddenly
> > >the TPC will be in style again and accepted for all to see.
> > >
> >
> > {rediculous bullcrap deleted}
> >
> > Yes Jan. As we already knew, Linux blows the crap out of W2k,
> > whether it be a single PC in single processor mode, SMP contest,
> > or a CLUSTER.
>
> sigh ... did you even read any of it?
>
> >
> > GEEZUS CHRIST!
>
> obvious not - but you got some religion!
>
> >
> > Do you have to read all your crap from magazines and web sites Jan?
>
> not all but some.
>
> >
> > Couldn't you just do your own tests like the rest of us?
>
> I have - but who'd believe the results of a small company and it's peeps -
> we need independent benchmarks for proof.
Linux is the best there is and at the lowest possible cost.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:13:29 -0700
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jon Johansan wrote:
> > >
> > > I had to blink and look twice: Linux has finally made it's appearence at
> > > tpc.org and it's in first place!
> > >
> > > http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
> > >
> > > There you have it, a linux powered result of 2733 smoking past the 1699
> > > result posted for a W2K box.
> > >
> > > Well, I extend my hand in congratulations to the penguins for their
> stunning
> > > entry into the world of high end database benchmarks. I'm certain
> suddenly
> > > the TPC will be in style again and accepted for all to see.
> > >
> > > But... wait...
> > >
> > > I peered past the self-congratulatory posts at /. and looked into the
> actual
> > > disclosures themselves...
> > >
> > > What's this? The linux box is not a box, it's a ... GASP ... CLUSTER! OH
> NO!
> > > And, what's this? The W2K box IS a single box.
> >
> > Score one for Win 2K on the Unisys machine.
>
> <bowing>
>
> >
> > > And, what's this? The linux solution isn't even availble yet, not until
> > > 10/31/01 (if it ships on time).
> >
> > Sounds like a ship date similar to XP!
>
> But it isn't and this has nothing to do with XP. The linux solution isn't
> available yet. The Windows 2000 solutions uses pre-SP1 (i.e., virgin release
> code) Advance Server, not even the latest code.
>
> >
> > > And, what's this? The W2K solution is 9 months old with less than
> > > state-of-the-art HW and SW.
> >
> > A non-point.
>
> I wonder what you'd say if the tables were turned... nevermind, I already
> know.
>
> >
> > > And, what's this? The linux solution uses 16x700 Mhz PIIIs and the W2K
> > > result uses 8x700 Mhz PIIIs.
> >
> > Nice to see Linux scaling so nicely!
>
> Now THAT was funny! And, in fact, it's not scaling well, it didn't double
> the performance with twice the processors like W2K has done.
>
> >
> > > And, what's this? The linux solution uses a fiber channel storage array
> > > connected via 5 PCI controllers (whew!) versus a single plain jane scsi
> card
> > > in the compaq.
> >
> > "Plain jane" scsi? Where'd you come up with that one?
>
> US slang - figure it out.
>
> >
> > > And, what's this? Linux needs a gigabit adapter while W2K does fine with
> a
> > > single 10/100 card.
> >
> > It would have been nice to see the slower adapter on the linux box,
> > and to have a better breakdown of the bottlenecks on both systems.
>
> why - to lower the results on the linux box? weird...
>
> > >
> > > But - say the penguins - remember, LINUX IS FREE and since the OS is
> free
> > > obviously (according to them) everything associated with it is so much
> > > cheaper that you'll always save money using Linux.
> >
> > As happened here... $317 for Linux (why did they cost it as four copies?)
> > versus $2400 for Win 2000 Advanced Server.
>
> because there were four machines in the cluster. redhat requires one
> licensed copy per server.
>
> >
> > > * WHAT'S THIS? $347/QphH for the linux "solution" versus $161/QphH for
> the
> > > W2K box? *
> > > (The linux solution costs: almost $1 million vs the W2K solution costing
> > > about 1/4 that!)
> > >
> > > So... I spend almost 250% as much money to get 60% more performance
> using
> > > FOUR computers (hey Matt, how much heat is that?? Think of the cooling
> > > budget!!) that aren't even shipping yet.
> >
> > Look at SGI's server storage costs! $304000 plus $71280 for 5-year
> maintenance
> > versus only $157000 plus $30000 for the Unisys hardware.
> >
> > I'd say SGI hardware is more than twice the price!
>
> yes, that is true. Unix servers cost more than wintel servers, we already
> knew this.
>
> >
> > > The cost of the MS-based software is $16,327 but the cost of the
> Linux-based
> > > software is $315,824. I see where the savings using Linux adds up there.
> >
> > The total cost of software in the SGI system is essentially due to the
> > cost of IBM's DB2 software. That's about $316000 plus $50000 versus
> > $16,000 plus $10000 for the Unisys solution.
>
> but that's what they ran... and that's what it cost. If they had a cheaper
> solution, why didn't they use it?
>
> >
> > You can't fault linux for the greater cost of the SGI system.
>
> I'm not, necessarily, but finally it's dawning that the cost of the OS is
> insignificant. A "free" OS means squat when the hardware and other software
> makes up the lion share of the price. Are you starting to see why I
> mentioned this? Linux being "free" means nothing. Zippo.
>
> >
> > > So lets see, the 10/31/01 clustered result is going head to head against
> > > last years result using advanced server without clustering. Anyone wanna
> > > take bets on what a Datacenter driven, clustered W2K/SQL2K result using
> the
> > > same number of processors is going to do to that score?? I will...
> (hint:
> > > check out the TPC-C results for BOTH raw performance and
> price/performance).
> >
> > I sure would check them out, if I could find the comparable setup. Can
> > you provide the link so we know we're looking at the same data? Thanks.
> > I'd rather look at the specs myself than have to filter out your
> > ejaculatory verbiage.
>
> I posted the link to the TPC-H. You can easily navigate to the TPC-C results
> from there too. Just start at www.tpc.org and have fun. it's not my job to
> help you perform some basic clicks (but, what the heck, here you go: TPC-C
> by performance: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp and
> TPC-C by price/performance:
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_price_perf_results.asp)
>
> >
> > > The way I see it, W2K is still better. It's cheaper, runs faster and
> easier
> > > to use.
> >
> > Cheaper than SGI hardware, and cheaper than IBM database software, that
> is.
> > In both systems, the OS is a trivial part of the cost, Linux being about
> > 0.03% of the cost of the system, and Win 2K Advanced Server being about
> > 0.85% of the cost of the system.
>
> I totally and completely agree with you 100% The cost of the OS is trivial.
> I will remind you that we agree on this every time someone says "but linux
> is free!"
>
> >
> > Can't see how this is a comparison of two operating systems, but I do
> > agree that it puts SGI and IBM in a somewhat bad light.
>
> Again I agree but I'm posting something being reported on every pro-Linux
> news site and even ZDNet now. The very first appearence of a system running
> linux in a major official independent benchmark. And it didn't do too well
> (when comparing apples to apples that is).
XP is vapor ware!
Linux is the best bet for your money!
--
V
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
