Linux-Advocacy Digest #557, Volume #25 Wed, 8 Mar 00 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Salary? (Bud Rogers)
Re: Salary? (Desmond Coughlan)
Re: Salary? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: A little advocacy.. ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: A little advocacy.. ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: A little advocacy.. ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: Backup Options ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: New Linux Exclusive Website! ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: Disproving the lies. (George Marengo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bud Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 08 Mar 2000 05:44:25 -0600
"Matt O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the US, you get great value for your money if you actually have money,
> but if you're poor, you're screwed.
Matt, you've just summed up life in the USA in one succinct sentence.
--
Bud Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.sirinet.net/~budr/zamm.html
Though all my neighbors are barbarians, and you are a thousand miles away,
there are always two cups on my table.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Desmond Coughlan)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 8 Mar 2000 12:14:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 07 Mar 2000 22:41:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's all well and good, but what's public transportation like in the UK? In
> the suburban areas of the US you're lucky if it exists. In most places, it
> doesn't.
>
> (Remember, what I would consider a "short" drive for a long weekend sould get me
> around the entire country of Scotland as far as distance goes.)
>
> I think nothing of driving 45 minutes to spend a couple of hours with friends
> a couple of times a week. One of those friends travels to Scotland FREQUENTLY
> on business, and they all think we're daft for driving that bloody long just for
> a couple of hours!
>
> So, everything is relative.
Being from Scotland, I was amazed at the size of the United States, the
first time I went there. I remember thinking, 'Yeah, leave Boston,
get on the I-95 to New York ... cool.'
Little did I realise how far it was !!
There's something else to consider: the speed limits in Europe are higher,
so we can get around more quickly, and the distances are shorter. On
the aforementioned trip from Boston to New York, I spent most of the
time on the I-95, driving between 85 and 110 mph, much to the amazement
of my American friends, whose reactions varied from 'You're crazy!', to
something slightly less printable ... ;-)
The size of the motorways (what you people call 'highways') is quite
impressive, too. I once drove from M�nchen to Berlin on the
Autobahnen, and was rarely below 140 mph, but most of the Autobahnen
are two-lane, which means a lot of braking to let some stupid Sunday
driver in his VW Beetle, get out of the 'overtaking' lane at 60 mph.
In the United States, there are so many lanes that one can (and I did)
overtake two or three lanes to the left, so as not to scare the shit
out of some coffin dodger, as you roar past at almost double his
speed.
Woah !!! :-)
--
Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris France
***************************************************************************
The views expressed in these articles are my own, and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Forum des Images.
***************************************************************************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] + 33 (0)1 44.76.62.29 http://www.forumdesimages.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 01:56:30 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:35:26 -0800...
...and Matt O'Toole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > So we Europeans can't afford 3 SUVs per household. I reckon that's an
> > advantage.
>
> If you happen to like that kind of thing, it's still much better to have the
> option, don't you think? You don't have to spend it all. Instead, you can
> save and invest it, and retire early, with more. Wouldn't it be great to be
> able to say "take this job and shove it," and spend your time writing open
> source software instead? ;-)
Of course! That phrase was rather tongue-in-cheek.
> > Seriously: The standard of living here in Germany is rather higher
> > than in the United States. As for salaries, they aren't necessarily
> > lower, if they're lower, that's usually compensated by a much lower
> > number of workhours per week and per lifetime.
>
> My roommate is German, and this is what he thinks. He's appalled by the
> cost of living here, and by how hard people work. (Notice my choice of
> words.)
Compared to the U.S., we hardly work at all ;)))
Germany is one of the best places to live at the moment. But unlike
some USAmericans, we don't run around claiming "we're the best country
in the world" because then our past would come over, tap us on our
shoulder and say "Silly boy. Remember the mess that got us into? Shut
up."
> > Also take in account that we've got the state taking care of our
> > health, pension etc., that is we don't need to pay private health
> > insurances and such from our salary after taxes unless we want to.
>
> That's pretty amazing, that the government gives you a choice. In England,
> even the "free" state health care costs more than the most deluxe private
> insurance over here, and most British people with money still feel the need
> to have private insurance also. In the US, you get great value for your
> money if you actually have money, but if you're poor, you're screwed.
Over here, we have a great public health system that delivers quite
good value because it's not a monopoly. There are several public
health insurance organisations competing for customers. But they
aren't companies, and thus don't work for their shareholders, but for
their customers only. And their CEO and boards are elected by their
customers in a democratic fashion, too -- quite nice system.
Same goes for banks and TV networks in Germany. I, for one, am glad
that my bank account is handled by an independent, non-profit
organisation working for the good of the public instead of some
turbo-capitalist global-player corporation that's busily planning the
next merger.
(Rationale: Today I heard that Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank are
going to merge. That merger will probably don't do the public *any*
good, as it will lead to up to 30,000 fired employees and shutting
down of bank subsidiaries all across the country.)
mawa
--
Tja, nun bin ich selber Kanzler - und welches andere Subventionsbonbon
sollte ich meinen W�hlern geben als meine W�hler's Original?
W�hler's Original. Damit auch du jemand ganz Besonderen w�hlst - mich.
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 05:59:53 -0700
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> Gee, I was running the MSDE the other day on a Win98 box. It's SQL Server 7,
> just scaled back in some respects but it's the same base engine, exact same
> syntax and functions, just limits on size. And if you don't consider SQL
> Server 7 a serious database... well... I'm sure even you won't make that
> mistake.
And only Drestin could smoke enough crack to contemplate running a serious
database on Win98.
-NateGrey
Typed while user was using DB/2
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 06:08:47 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Please tell me what computers were available for home use in the late
> > '60's?
>
> Never heard of the Altair?
>
The Altair didn't come about til the '70s you twit.
See, Windows DOES promote brain rot.......
-NateGrey
It's Tuxosaka, the ninja penguin!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 06:05:15 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:mlKw4.15350$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Has anyone noticed that all "reasons" given about Linux being inferior to
> > Windows just don't make sense?
>
> They may not make sense to you, but they sure make sense to the majority of
> current computer users.
>
> > Sure Linux requires more study. I don't mind using my brain. If you do,
> > then stick to windows.
>
> Most current computer users don't even know how to use Windows all that
> well, and linux can take a lot more work. Tell a Doctor that's spent 7
> years in medical school, 4 years as an intern and working 75 hours a week
> that he has to learn Linux. Won't happen.
>
> > True, it doesn't support a lot of hardware. Keep in mind it's original
> > intended purpose. It supports enough for what it was intended. It's
> > working it's way into homes because people are tired of problems with
> > Windows and are looking for an alternative. Remember when computers were
> > only used in companies. They eventually made it to homes.
>
> Computers were *NEVER* "only used in companies". They've been used in homes
> since the late 60's, and they began life in educational and military
> situations. But even so, they were still hobyist systems, which is what
> Linux primarily is in the home today. If you use your computer to get work
> done, rather than as a fun experiment, you'll find Linux to be not worth the
> effort.
>
> > Not a lot of commercial software availabe? True. At least not software
> > suitable for home use. Again, remember it's intended purpose. Software
> > companies will make software for the popular OS regardless of it's
> quality.
> > Look at Macintosh. If you go to most retail stores that sell software,
> > you'll see several hundred titles for the PC and just a little corner for
> > the Mac. Why is that?
>
> Linux advocates say it's intended purpose is to replace windows. You seem
> to be saying otherwise. Perhaps you should get together with the others and
> get your stories straight.
>
> > Hard to find hardware that works. See above.
> >
> > The bottom line is use whatever you like. There is no need to put down
> > something you don't like. My Linux system wouldn't run with any version
> of
> > Windows (95, 98, 98SE, NT 4.0) for more than a few minutes without locking
> > up. Linux runs for days with no problems on the same hardware. There are
> > definitely several advantages using Linux over Windows. People wouldn't
> > spend their time learning something more difficult unless there was a
> valid
> > reason.
>
> I can guarantee that I can configure your Linux system to run only for a few
> minutes and lock up.
>
> Windows is not as unstable as you claim except when improperly configured,
> much like Linux. (No, i'm not saying Windows is as stable as Linux, I'm
> saying it's not as unstable as your claiming) But for the majoroity of
> people that run their computer for a few hours then shut it off, Windows
> never or almost never crashes for said people.
>
> I'm not saying that Linux sucks or that it's bad or cutting you down for
> choosing it. If it works for you, great. But don't sit here and claim that
> because a user doesn't want to invest the time to learn Linux that they are
> stupid or whatever. Also, don't claim that it's suitable for everyone or
> even most people, since it's clearly not. Even the CEO of SUSE recently
> said that Linux is "not there yet" in terms of desktop useage.
But it does everything I want a desktop OS to do, and hence, on my desktop, the
Win98se cd is my coffee coaster..........
-NateGrey
Attack of the Plastic Sporks, coming to a lunch near you...............
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Backup Options
Date: 8 Mar 2000 13:11:44 GMT
Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>I think a tape drive would be a worthwhile investment, although I
:>think something akin to a 2GB Jaz drive would be a better all-around
:>storage medium. This is because you can use it for many things, not
:>just backups, and the backups are liable to be much faster. I guess
:>tape drives, while slow as hell, would be more cost effective if you
:>do many large-volume backups.
: A CD-R (recordable) drive for $2-300 might be a good method
: for backup -- the media cost less than a dollar for 650 MB,
: and they probably last a lot longer than magnetic disks or
: tapes (and can't get wiped by a magnetic field).
We have a fairly good choice of backup media today, but I find CD-RW
drives to be a very good choice for home users, due to their
relatively high capacity (compared to floppies or ZIP drives at
least), availability of multiple CD-RW drive and media vendors,
reliability compared to magnetic media, and, last but not least, the
fact that in a pinch, a CD-R or CD-RW can be read by any reasonably
recent CD drive once the session is closed.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 06:22:26 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And a classic LinoNut response if ever there was one.
>
> And you idiots wonder why NOBODY NORMAL is interested in running
> Linux?
>
> Only the stupid people are running Linux. The idiots who hate Bill so
> much that they give up their time in order to configure, configure and
> configure again an obviously inferior operating system all the while
> ignoring all the wonderful APPLICATIONS that are availible for
> Windows.
>
But I don't want any of your bug-infested, bloated, unusable applications, they
suck like a tornado
>
> YOU are the stupid one :(
NO, actually you are, for posting here
>
>
> Linux will sink to the bottom like the torpedoed Lusitania....
>
> It's already on it's way down as we speak...
Says who? Gatan your boss?
>
>
> I can't wait till the day it hits rock bottom, and it will be soon.
Windows first pinko
-NateGrey
OOoops, did my penguin break your window?
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 06:25:42 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ????
>
> Linux sucks. It needs to be told...We tell it like it is..
>
> Sorry if you are outnumbered 10 to 1.....
>
>
So, we have the tac-nukes, 10 to 1 ceases to matter at that point
-NateGrey
Never argue with someone who has nuclear weapons....
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Linux Exclusive Website!
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 06:32:55 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> And rightfully so. It is a sickness that God is dealing with via AIDS.
>
Your god must be one piss-poor shot then, because last I checked, AIDS also killed
transfusion reciepiants, and an awefully large number of those straights who
oppose homosexuality.
-NateGrey
I'm tolerant person, except when it comes to intolerant people
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: 8 Mar 2000 13:42:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:49:25 -0300,
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Do you prefer "active contents" even though they may erase your HD
> > and send out money orders you won't approve off? I mean, noone
> > would actually sign malicious code or even code that turned off
> > your security measures, would they?
> Eh, that's ironic, I suppose?
*blush* You got me ... *blush*
> Anyway, different authors will have
> different policies. It's up to you to trust the author... If you don't,
> don't run his/her/their stuff.
That does not help you. 2 perfectly innocent actions can be
murder if combined. Let one person put a 'harmless' powder into
some water, tell her it's going to be poured away or used for
watering the flowers. Let the other person offer water to the
victim.
Now translate that to ActiveX. Assume some innocent program does
something. For doing this, restrictions are temporarily changed
...or a bug allows something. Now another, also harmless program
does something ... maybe even as an unexpected side effect or a
bug.
> > Luckily pizza shops will usually ring back before delivery.
> They do so in Germany? They never did that in Belgium when
> I was still living there. You can't trust anybody anymore these
> days...
You ever ordered over the web? If you order per phone, they
always want your number and also get to see the number which
called them. If they don't match (and they try the phone book
entries as well) they'll go by gut feelings ... or ring back.
> > (and that's not talking about the usual cardbord security,
> > either.)
> Eh? I don't get it...
MS is well known for absolutely unbreakable encryption. Almost as
well as for their famous uptimes, like 15 years for NT. :-)
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:57:12 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a54li$6et$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's a very long read but it is very well documented and detailed.
> >
> I also indicated that third party software increases the risks. This
> is also implied by the above statements. The statement is very
> carefully phrased to appease Microsoft, but holds no significant
> surprises.
>
> <quote>
> Provided that the NT/Windows 2000 environment is
> operated in a data-center-like manner
> with policies and procedures for change management,
> software updates, software
> distribution, backup/restore, and the like; and
> </quote>
>
> Again, this reaffirms my statements that when you conduct
> "standard maintenance" (which includes reboots at LEAST once
> per week, preferably once/night) and you deduct this as "scheduled
> down time" (therefore not included in availability ratings), you
> can achieve availability of around 99.97% (more on this below).
No what this confirms is that you have the ability to read whatever you want
into anything. What the report says is that if the machines are operated
with the same level of expertise and care as other systems in the Datacenter
they will perform like other systems in the Datacenter.
>
> <quote>
> Provided that, in heterogeneous environments, third-party
> or custom code is used to enhance system manageability
> and security, as well as to improve cross-operating
> environment directory services.
> <quote>
>
> Put very simply, if you intend to server anything other than trivial
> web pages and intend to integrate to other systems - NT is NOT a
> self-contained solution. In fact, NT does not support critical
> standards required for reliable integration with Minicomputers,
> Mainframes, and SuperComputers used for truly "Mission Critical"
> environments.
So how come NT is wdiely used in such environments as 911 call processing,
web commerce etc. Do you think that DELL or Barnes&noble.com don't consider
web sales "mission critical"!
>
> > NT is reliable
> > and definately enterprise ready. W2K even
> > much more so.
>
> <quote>
> Table 1
> Early Adopter Reliability Statistics on Windows 2000
>
> Customer # Run Time (years) Down Time Availability
> Percentage
> 1 0.45 0.10 99.94
> 2 4.18 0.84 99.95
> 3 0.09 0.01 99.96
> 4 0.30 0.00 100.00
> 5 0.65 0.09 99.96
> 6 0.84 0.07 99.98
> 7 0.72 0.01 100.00
> 8 0.81 0.41 99.86
> 9 0.39 0.13 99.91
> Totals: 8.42 1.65 99.95
>
> Source: Microsoft Corporation, February 2000
> </quote>
>
> Let's see what 99.95% availability really means.
But before we do that, lets remember that these are reliability figure for a
beta OS and presumably include downtime for installs of releases and other
works that you would expect to happen during a beta testing cycle.
>There are
> 7 days/week 24 hours/day and 60 minutes/hour or 10080 minutes.
> That means that you can expect an average of 5 minutes of
> unscheduled down-time per week.
>Furthermore, the highest
> likelihood of a failure is during peak-hour load, during
> the most critical period.
Not necessarily, in fact probably not. Many of the failures on any OS occur
when people are screwing around with new software installs, tweaking and
other stuff that is done in off hours.
>Often, secondary numbers giving
> times of 90% uptimes on a 12x6 basis (mon-sat 7am-7pm) tend
> to indicate that most failures happen during "prime-time".
Care to back that up with a reference or did you pluck that from somewhere
south of your waist.
>
> For each $1 million a company makes, nearly 80% occurrs during
> prime-time, and nearly 60% happen during peak-time - 3 hours/day
> 3 days/week (mon, thurs, friday) 50 weeks/year - roughly 27000
> minutes - at $22/minute per million earned. but we have 50*5 minutes
> per year of down-time 250 minutes. This yields a down-time cost
> of $5500/year per server per million earned. A one billion company
> with 2000 NT servers loses 110 million/year. This assumes that each
> server has an impact of $1 million/year.
ROTFLMAO. And you don't think that if this was actually true or even close
(within several orders of magnitude) that peole would be dumping faster than
you could blink.
>
> By the way, the industry average uptime for UNIX systems is 99.9998%
Getting even close to "five 9s" availablity without using highly fault
tolerant hardware is very tough, do you have any statistics or references to
back this claim up, my BS detector is goign crazy right now.
>
> Linux isn't quite as reliable as Solaris, AIX, or HP_UX, and only
> touts 99.9993% or a reboot once/month INCLUDING time spent to reboot to
> switch to a kernel upgrade.
Again, who is providing these reliability stats?
> Linux keeps these statistics
> as part of it's standard function and averages uptimes of about 6
> months. There are sites that have reported uptimes of over 4 years.
>
> Once I put the UPS on my Linux box, I have clocked over 4 months
> of uptime. I rebooted to upgrade.
On a UPS, my NTW 4.0 workstation was rebooted once three times last year to
install service packs. Perhaps you could tell us what sort of applications
your LINUX box was running and what sort of load it was under, after all you
seem to be an expert in giving ungrounded statistics on just everything
else.
>
> What if the Stock Market crashed 5 minutes/week?
>
NASDAQ runs largely on NT and that doesn't seem to be failing five minutes a
week.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: 8 Mar 2000 14:06:09 GMT
mbkennel@ yahoo.spam-B-gone.com <REMOVETHEBADDOMAIN> writes:
: I have to disagree: because I don't see an opportunity for Apple becoming
: ``relevant'' in a Linux standard any more than it could be relevant in
: a Windows standard other than making x86 PC's, in which case it would have
: preceded Packard Bell into Dogbert's Dumb-pster.
When I say relevant, I mean that Apple should be able to win when Linux
wins. The danger of the antithesis is that any win by Linux would be seen
to diminish Apple.
I don't think Apple has to sell dumb clones to be relevant, but they have
to find a way to say "cool!" a little more often and a little more loudly
when good things happen in Linux land.
: I think their current plan is to work on OS X really hard.
Absolutely, and this should be their first priority.
: Another muddle is : Linux is big! Apple just has to *do something*!
: What, exactly? Two things that are clear wins it's already done: QTSS and
: OpenPlay (network gaming library to compete against Microsoft's). But
: I can't figure out any grand strategy.
Or "Why, exactly?"
Why didn't Apple make a Quicktime player for Linux?
They certainly didn't owe it to anyone, but why did they decide not to
make friends?
John
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 14:09:11 GMT
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:47:35 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<snip>
>> The numbers don't skew the end results one way or the other,
>> since the machine with 4.18 years of Run Time was exactly at
>> the average uptime, but it's just odd... and they don't explain it.
>
>They do explain it, if you go to chapter 3 like they tell you to.
Indeed, they do. I missed it the first time, thanks.
>> What I personally find most appealing is the reduction of
>> reboots after software installs... all you Windows users know
>> the routine... install software -- reboot. On NT, install SP, reboot,
>> install Hot Fix, reboot.
>
>You still need to reboot when installing a service pack, just like you need
>to reboot when upgrading your kernel.
Fair enough... not having to reboot after nearly every program
install is a good move.
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
