Linux-Advocacy Digest #564, Volume #25 Wed, 8 Mar 00 20:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Disproving the lies. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: BSD & Linux (Marc Espie)
Re: Salary? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Salary? ("Carlos J. G. Duarte")
Re: Salary? ("Carlos J. G. Duarte")
Re: Disproving the lies. (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: New Linux Exclusive Website! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Salary? (Greg Yantz)
Re: Salary? ("Carlos J. G. Duarte")
Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable) (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:00:01 GMT
In article <v%sx4.6$897.392@client>,
"Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "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.
IBM mainframes are IPL'd on a pretty regular basis, usually
once/week.
Actually, I worked for a company that had nearly 3000 NT servers
by the time I left. After service pack three, they were getting
average uptimes of about 99.95%. Standard operations procedures
included weekly reboots of "trivial" machines (file servers,
DNS/WINS servers and trivial applications). More specialized
machines running 3rd party applications were rebooted nightly.
> > <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"!
I helped implement some of the earliest LIFE 911 systems, for
Computer Consoles - now a division of Nortel. These systems
all ran on UNIX. Last I heard about 90% of the 911 market was
still running on variants of UNIX. Mainframes also had a small
niche. What percentage of the market does NT have?
I should point out that if you put enough redundant servers
into parallel, you can make a system appear to be much more
reliable. Dell and Barns&Noble both use this approach, as does
the Microsoft site. I've heard of some systems which use load
balancing routers and firewalls (actually UNIX systems disguised as
appliances) to distribute the traffic across as many as 300 servers.
IBM's WebShere provides the same type of load balancing across multiple
UNIX systems or NT systems. The company I discussed above replecated
multiple copies of each NOTES database so that even massive NT failures
requiring "reengineering" of the server (reinstallation of all software)
didn't result in a catastrophic loss.
Many clusters also use dynamic DNS - a little feature UNIX and Linux
have used for years to balance loads across multiple systems.
> > > 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.
No, that would be part of scheduled maintenance and wouldn't
be counted as downtime. However, you are correct in that the
failures are more likely to occur when new software, especially
3rd party (non-Microsoft) or custom software has been added to
the system. Note however, that companies don't count failures
into uptime calculations until after a full rollout has been
completed.
> >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.
Same source I got the 24x7 figures (the company with 3000 servers).
I'm suprised Aberdeen didn't include it. But on the other hand,
this glowing review WAS located on the Microsoft site. One can
guess that some of the more embarrassing results were deleted.
> > 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 people
> would be dumping faster than
> you could blink.
Companies chose NT for a number of reasons. Many were simply ordered
to do so by non-technical managers whose only knowledge of computers
was that they had been using Microsoft operating systems and
applications to create really impressive presentations for the boss.
There are very few users familiar with multiple operating systems,
especially those popular with UNIX who would consider NT uptimes to
be superior to an version of UNIX. Furthermore, there is more manual
maintainance required (Most of NT administration is only supported
from the GUI interface). Most companies at least try to use Citrix
to eliminate the need for one console per box.
> > 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 going crazy right now.
Service level guarantees from IBM, HP, and Sun. And yes, you are
correct, most of these systems are configured with RAID, TUXEDO, and
XA databases. Remember, UNIX systems are designed to be redundant,
reentrant, and self-maintaining. The use of cron jobs, distributed
processing, and recovering protocols has helped increase the uptime
of overall systems.
> >
> > 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?
Several web sites and website administrators. Try asking DejaNews.
They have several hundred Linux systems and tout "five-nines".
Personally, I've typically only made it to 99.997% myself. But
that's because I wasn't using a UPS.
> > 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.
My workstation was running news, mail, web, snmp, router, firewall,
and about 40 other services. About 200 processes. I was running
a very light load - mostly simulated. Having one machine hammer the
other.
My primary point is that for some applications such as a vanity
web server that contains non-critical information, 99.97 is enough.
One could say that this is "enterprise ready". For mission critical
workflow applications which enforce business rules, contract
requirements, and time-critical obligations, 99.97% may be completely
unacceptable.
> > 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.
The part of NASDAQ that runs on NT isn't mission critical. It's
basically the part that distributes summaries generated from delayed
quotes to the web. Furthermore, these systems are reduntantly
replicated across several NT systems (something like 100 servers?)
and the traffic is distributed using dynamic DNS generated by
UNIX servers.
For the mission critical exchange related systems, the brokerages
still use SCO UNIX or Solaris, the central systems are UNIX, and
the journals of the transactions are fed to OS/390 systems which
then distribute transaction records to the clearing houses. I used
to work for a Clearing House as well as several other key areas of
the financial industry. This is part of the reason that 99.97%
is not acceptable for me.
It's clearly obvious that 99.97% wasn't acceptable in a number of
situations. This is why Microsoft focused very heavily on increasing
the reliability and performance of Window 2000. Today, Microsoft
applications run pretty nicely on Microsoft servers. The problem is
that most 3rd party vendors aren't really interested in the
Windows 2000 market.
Oracle, Sybase, Informix, and IBM are offering their flagship databases
on Linux and Linux compatible systems (the BSD variants). BEA is
offering Tuxedo, and IBM has MQSeries in Beta. Windows 2000 breaks
nearly all of the existing 3rd party software, most of the legacy
Microsoft software, and doesn't show much promise of generating any
significant revenue.
Why create a database server to compete with SQL Server bundleware.
Why create an Office Suite to compete with MS-Office bundleware.
Why create new products for Win2K when Microsoft will put you out
of business by feeding your trade secrets to a third-rate competitor.
Microsoft wanted to use Win2K to lock in it's monopoly and give it
monopoly control over all IT standards. The problem is that Microsoft
changes it's standards without regards to the wishes of it's customers,
it's third party supporters, and even it's own internal organizations.
NT service pack 2, service pack 4, and service pack 6 all broke things.
What made this really frustrating was that some of these service packs
were supposedly required for Y2K compliance.
Microsoft won't be getting much 3rd party CORBA support, much 3rd party
LDAP support, much 3rd party security support, and it's hard to imagine
how much longer they will getting MQ support. Sure, there will be
"lip service", but Microsoft wants you to use DCOM, ActiveDirectory,
MSMQ, and all of their other proprietary technology - all intended
to lock competitors out of the Windows 2000 market.
What remains? Specialty niche programs for niche industries? Custom
solutions with more risk than a new venture start-up on a shoestring?
Most companies aren't even letting their internal staff do development
work because they can't get and keep the level of expertize required
for real enterprise solutions.
Creating a pretty VB display is relatively easy. Creating servers
capable of providing compliance with government regulatory agencies
at national or international capacities requires something special.
Many companies are beginning to realize that when it comes to
prototyping an enterprise solution, Linux is a better starting
point than NT. Furthermore, since most experienced IT managers
know that really good applications ofter turn into enterprise
solutions, they are switching them to Linux to assure compliance
to industry standards that can be implemented on fully scalable
platforms. If it takes 30 staff-weeks to convert an
MFC/OLE/COM/DCOM/ActiveX/COM+ solution into a CORBA/WEB application,
you really need to question whether you want to start with
MFC/OLE/COM/DCOM/ActiveX/COM+ or if you might just want to start
with CGI and migrate to MOD_PERL with some MQ, CORBA, or PVM/MPI
alterations.
see:
http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW20000306S0009
> --
> Nik Simpson
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc Espie)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 9 Mar 2000 00:07:24 GMT
In article <8a6oan$2aah$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Noah Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And, speaking of FreeBSD, how does it fare in compatability with Linux?
>> Can the two live together on the same drive with Win98? NetBSD destroyed
>> all the partitions I had. I can't say I am impressed with the *BSDs so
>> far....
>
>Youve missed the point of freebsd entirely...Its not a "hobby" OS or
>really a "workstation" OS, its for ridiculously long uptimes and major
>load handling. I have no idea why anyone would want to put it on the
>same hard drive as any other operating system, especially now that
>physical drives are so cheap.
Oh boy, I've got news for you.
There's this exciting new technology that's been out there for a few years
now. It's called a laptop. It usually comes with one single hard drive, and
it's pretty expensive to connect more.
Of course, you can always buy one laptop per OS.
Want to buy me a second laptop, so that I can stop having Linux, OpenBSD,
Windows all on the same hard-drive ?
--
Marc Espie
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 9 Mar 2000 00:22:52 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 15:53:49 -0700, Michael C. Watz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just wait until we have $2.50/gallon prices this summer.... break out
>the bikes!
Our local paper had an article about gas prices and they mention some guy
who drives "70 miles per day" for his commute and it costs him "$250 per
month" for gas at $1.50 per gallon. Let's see...that works out to about
12.6 miles/gal if he that 70 miles every single day (and worse if he
doesn't).
Gee, I wonder what kind of vehicle he has? Tough luck bonehead. You
shoulda bought a car instead of a rolling condo.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Carlos J. G. Duarte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 9 Mar 2000 00:24:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.os.linux.misc Mr. Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> In what respect is the standard of living higher in Germany than in the
> USA?
they have better cars than you.
they have tax-free highways.
they have 6 weeks vacancies, you have 2.5.
most german workers have a 36h week.
they don't have speed limits...
they have free medical assistance
they have a freely educational system...
although, they do have problems:
. wether: too cold at winter, too hot at summer
. language: hardly understandable or spoken :-)
> Also take into account that the USA is the world leader in advanced medical
> treatment and research. The Houston Medical Center is the largest medical
> center in the world, not to mention the rest of the USA's medical centers.
not really: in the medical, bio-technology, and related areas, europe
is quite well developed. I guess the two countries ahead (at europe)
are UK and Sweden. German and Swiss are quite well on the pharmacy
industry. Not too long ago, the brits shook the world with the
Dolly cloning, while a swedish research lab announced recently a
possible treatment for aids. In this area, europe is well served,
as is in the mechanical area (cars, civil planes, industrial machinery...),
and most day-to-day industry (clothes, plastics, ...), the problem
resides in new technologies, such computing, electronics and aeronautics,
where the USA has a big overall advantage.
--
Carlos Duarte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://cgd.teleweb.pt
------------------------------
From: "Carlos J. G. Duarte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 9 Mar 2000 00:33:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.os.linux.misc Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A pity that this American problem is strangling other countries, too.
> Because the Americans work their asses off without any real need to do
> so, pressure is put on other countries.
japs work longer, and in the last few years, a number of deaths
caused by work excess, were registered.
work in hours per year (average):
jap: 2200
usa: 2150
average europe: 1980
but you know the average law: you have two chickens, I have none,
in average, both of us have one.
in portugal, the average closes the 40h/week standard, but most IT or
high specialized, in general, workers, ranges from 45h to 60h/week.
--
Carlos Duarte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://cgd.teleweb.pt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:38:05 GMT
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:10:40 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: It's a very long read but it is very well documented and detailed.
I was a part of a telephone study conducted by a group that refused to
say who they were, only that they were employed by MSFT to survey W2k
beta sites, which we were. The topics discussed by this report are
exactly what I was asked.
Ch.3 'On Scalability' - "Many dot.com managers intimated that they do
not perceive an NT "scalability" problem and their IS infrastructures
comprise multiple, distributed two- and/or four-way servers with
load-balancing hardware and software front-ending their NT and Windows
2000 servers. Their attitude: "Need more power and scalability? Just
add another server ..."
What is this? A RAIC (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Computers)???
I'll take real scalability any day over simply adding more boxes.
'On Security' - "Many IS managers have stated over the past few years that
NT-based security was not "industrial-strength" when compared to Unix
and mainframe security technologies - especially in the areas of Kerberos
and public key support. Windows 2000 has improved overall systems security
by adding support for Kerberos version 5 (a security standard) and by
building a Public Key Certificate Server into the operating environment."
And rendered itself incompatible with the MIT kerberos v5... MS
uses a field thatwas left empty and reserved for future use.
Everyone - Full Control anyone?
The whole digitally signed driver thing is cute, but kind of dumb, if
you ask me. I haven't seen a single driver, other than the ones that
shipped on the CDs that was signed.
I will say, however, that Win 2000 Professional was definitely easier
to install than NT Workstation, in that the install was more automated than
NT Workstation install was. Other than that, it just feels like NT WS,
with a prettier face put on, and support for a couple of newer things
like DirectX 7 and the Windoze Installer.
--
Jason Costomiris <><
Technologist, cryptogeek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: New Linux Exclusive Website!
Date: 9 Mar 2000 00:40:27 GMT
On 8 Mar 2000 12:26:32 -0800, david parsons wrote:
> What are you going to do when you discover homosexuals using Windows?
Newsflash ! One of my buddies is gay and he uses Windows !
> Burn your computer and retreat to the Maine woods, so you can be safe
> from electronic contamination?
As long as it keeps him away from our newsgroup, it suits me.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
From: Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08 Mar 2000 19:43:31 -0500
"Carlos J. G. Duarte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Mr. Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > In what respect is the standard of living higher in Germany than in the
> > USA?
> they have better cars than you.
Some of them. :)
> they have tax-free highways.
They get taxed in plenty of other ways.
> they have 6 weeks vacancies, you have 2.5.
I thought it was 5. Over here 2 is minimum, more is
not unusual.
> most german workers have a 36h week.
You don't see many European start-ups, then. :) This is both
good and bad, and part of a larger debate. (And has some tiny
relation to linux...)
> they don't have speed limits...
On some roads...
> they have free medical assistance
> they have a freely educational system...
Couldn't really comment. Though from what I've heard, the educational
system can be very limiting- it's pretty much laid out for you from a
surprisingly young age what types of schools you go to (and *can* go to).
Correct me if I'm wrong.
> although, they do have problems:
> . wether: too cold at winter, too hot at summer
Try North Dakota, or Montana. The US is *big*, and parts of it have
really nasty weather. I've been in Germany in the winter, and it just
didn't seem that bad. :P
> . language: hardly understandable or spoken :-)
True. I never had any trouble finding people who spoke better English
than I do, when I needed help. :)
And also, housing. From what I've heard, it's pretty pricey in Europe.
Not that the US has doesn't have any expensive areas, but overall
Europe is just alot more crowded.
> > Also take into account that the USA is the world leader in advanced medical
> > treatment and research. The Houston Medical Center is the largest medical
> > center in the world, not to mention the rest of the USA's medical centers.
> not really: in the medical, bio-technology, and related areas, europe
> is quite well developed. I guess the two countries ahead (at europe)
> are UK and Sweden. German and Swiss are quite well on the pharmacy
> industry. Not too long ago, the brits shook the world with the
> Dolly cloning, while a swedish research lab announced recently a
> possible treatment for aids. In this area, europe is well served,
> as is in the mechanical area (cars, civil planes, industrial machinery...),
> and most day-to-day industry (clothes, plastics, ...), the problem
> resides in new technologies, such computing, electronics and aeronautics,
> where the USA has a big overall advantage.
The US (again, from what I hear) seems to have a vastly superior
communications infrastructure, overall. Though some parts of Europe
are pretty well wired, or linux and cryptography software might not
be so widespread today. :)
-Greg
------------------------------
From: "Carlos J. G. Duarte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 9 Mar 2000 00:44:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.os.linux.misc Eric LEMAITRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> products"), and many more miscellanous taxes for about 15%, which in all means
> that a french works nowadays at little more than 55% for taxes, the rest for
> him. I believe we have now the higest taxation in whole Europe. Saddly our dumb
actually, you don't!
it is well known, that it is sweden the country with heavier taxes
(and remaining nordic countries follows them)
curiously, I was looking into some stats on last weekend.
Unfortunately, I don't remember all the values by heart, but
(from the 12 or so analyzed countries, trying to make a representative
study), sweden was at top, with 70% and something consumation of their
GDP in state revenues.
mexico at the bottom, with 30% something.
portugal at the lower middle. we have about 43% (yes: here people
also thinks we are the ones that pay more...)
if france has the 55% you describe (although I have the
feeling that your numbers are slighly overestimated), that places
your country at the upper middle.
--
Carlos Duarte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://cgd.teleweb.pt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:45:13 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Matthias Warkus would say:
>It was the Wed, 08 Mar 2000 13:19:52 -0500...
>...and Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guys, it's OK to like Motif.
>
>You are missing an important point. Compared to GTK+ or Qt, Motif is
>medieval technology. It's a pain in the rear to program. Ever
>contemplated how many lines it takes to write a simple GUI "hello,
>world" program in Motif, as opposed to GTK+ or Qt?
I don't care how long "Hello, world!" is.
I *do* care how much grief there is in writing non-trivial
applications.
--
"...I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply
suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need
an interpreter." -- Nicholas Petreley, InfoWorld, Sept 16, 1996
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
