Linux-Advocacy Digest #570, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux code going down hill (abraxas)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Arthur Frain)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Yannick")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Yannick")
Re: Why use Linux? (Paul E. Larson)
Re: Why use Linux? (Paul E. Larson)
Re: Why use Linux? (Paul E. Larson)
Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Matthias Warkus)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Matthias Warkus)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
License? (darkstar51)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why use Linux? (Paul E. Larson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 10 Jul 2000 19:02:14 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > In article <8jnfn7$28pv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> >> Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> >> > <snip>
>> >> >> IMO, Solaris is more or less unusable until you add the GNU
>> >> >> utilities to it. ( Does it even ship with a C++ compiler ??? )
>> >> >
>> >> > No. Hell, it doesn't even ship with something as basic as 'top'.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Solaris is an exceedingly specialized UNIX, linux is not UNIX at
>> >> all. Linux is 'gnu-nux'.
>> >
>> > Well, if you REALLY want to nit-pick, Solaris isn't Unix either,
>> > and I don't understand "highly specialized". What exactly is it
>> > highly specialized for? Runs nicely as a desktop, database
>> > server, web server, application server, X terminal server,
>> > computational node, file server, names serveretc.
>>
>> So does VMS. Most OSes do.
>
> Actually not.
Oh really? Hmmm...OpenVMS runs as a desktop, database server, webserver,
applicaiton server, X terminal server, computational node, name server,
etc. It just isnt very popular. :)
> VM/CMS doesn't.
> Whatever and AS/400 runs is... well, it's good for "glass room"
> computers, and nothing more... requires a whole bevy of priests
> and accolytes to just keep the thing running. No graphic displays
> (at least not that I've ever seen)...
You need to look harder. Though I will admit that very often AIX is
used as a control node for these kinds of systems.
> general print server?
> Not at the price you pay for an AS/400--waste of clock cycles
> and everything.)
You dont have to run VMS on something that expensive, you know.
>
> NONE of the micro-computer OSes from the 70's and 80's do.
> Atari GEM? AmigaOS or Commodore anything as a database server?
>
You realize that Mainframes are still being made right now, dont
you?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:11:31 -0700
Drestin Black wrote:
> I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
> doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
> W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same. So, all this Apache
> dominates the web is for those that think PURE number counts mean
> EVERYTHING. Bullshit I say. Someone finally proved it out for me.
> The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making ones?
> Companies that are concerned about their image, product, availability,
> uptime, performance and all that matters cause their name/image on-line
> matters - they are NOT using apache and MOST DEFINATLEY not using Linux!
> +===+===+===
> http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?searchresult=1&ID=6150095626AM
> "The dominant position of Microsoft's proprietary IIS in the Fortune 500
> makes Windows NT a lock for the most used operating system undergirding the
> Web servers -- 43 percent. "
[snip]
I just knew Drestin or some other Wintroll would jump
on this the minute I saw it on slashdot. I think it
brings up several interesting points.
1. Although Drestin regularly critcizes slashdot for
its Linux bias, slashdot has obviously been the source
of links for his last few anti-Linux posts. I get a
good laugh out of that.
2. The fallacy in the article Drestin's referencing is
that the Fortune 500 have any relevance to webserving.
They certainly weren't there first, for example. I
know I've spent many happy hours surfing the Union Carbide
site, and have done tons of e-commerce with Allied
Signal. International Paper is the first site I visit
every day. Simply put, there is no correlation between
a company's size or profitability and it's webserving
needs. In fact, the article could be read as an
endorsement of the idea that if you want to spend
a lot of money on a very low traffic site, IIS is
the way to go.
3. Linked with this is the idea that Apache prdominates
on very small, low traffic sites. (Before someone
points out again the article that says Apache is
the preferred server for websites about doghouses,
I'll point out that "Doghouses of the South" in
fact runs on IIS) I have no argument with the
fact that among the millions of sites that use
Apache, many are small and low traffic. But the
interesting thing is that many of these sites
are aggregated on single servers. The people
who run these *servers* chose Apache, and that
seems like a good endorsement me to me - people
who's business is hosting many web sites seem
to have a preference for Apache, and that's more
telling than the statistics on Fortune 500 use.
Drestin has previously asserted that banks use
IIS extensively. I did a small survey of 20
or so large banks and found that major banks use
IIS with less than the 20% frequency Netcraft
reports.
Perhaps it impresses Drestin that he can use IIS
"just like the big guys do", but it appears that
nearly 2/3's of the rest of world isn't so easily
impressed.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:29:51 -0400
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yep, and I'm going to assume that this is done via some magnificent
> survey that does one of two things.
>
I would suspect it was done by querying the web servers at tithe Fortune 500
companies concerned, it's not hard to do. If you question the results it
would be easy to try and disprove them.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:35:26 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Quoting Yannick from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:35:34
> GMT
> >Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
> >8jumsu$mae$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> (...)
> >> > Windows has no equal...At least not yet....
> >> If you were happy with Windows, why were you considering a switch?
> >> In order to be able to troll perhaps?
> >
> >Why, everybody was telling him linux was better. That MS was an horrible
> >company, working only to suck his money and control his life. That they were
> >going to destroy Microsoft and Windows, the OS he was currently using...
>
> ...sucked. Go ahead, you can say it. "Windows sucks".
1. This was a regular ellipsis for the whole paragraph. (Meaning : other sentences
like these could be included). The sentence itself was finished.
2. I won't say "Windows sucks". I don't think "Windows sucks". Or, rather, I don't
think that Windows sucks more than any other OS...
> >In other words, some people in the linux community used Fear, Uncertainty
> >and Doubt, so the guy considered switching (FUD ... ??? I must have made a
> >mistake. This is the capital sin MS is accused of... surely no linux user would
> >use such techniques ?)...
>
> You did make a mistake.
No. I did not make a mistake. I made a small shift of the concept. ...not even of
the concept, in fact, only of its context. You said yourself that :
> FUD is a dishonest activity, it uses *lies and
> half-truths* to foment Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt,
... and this is exactly what I meant.
> which we must all admit are natural parts of any typical person's use of
> computers.
> But that MS is a horrible company,
As of today, this has become an _opinion_.
> that their products work only to suck money
It's an american company...
> and control the customer
"Control the customer" remains to be seen...
Securing their market share is another matter...
> (aside from being a mediocre-to-crappy OS),
As of today, this has become an opinion, not a simple fact...
> and that Microsoft and the industry in general will soon undergo
> major changes. None of those things are untrue, and so teaching people
> that they should try alternatives and not be afraid to learn how
> computers really work isn't FUD.
Never denied the fact that he should try an alternative... only disapproved
of how he was convinced to do so...
> Saying "Windows is easy, Linux is hard" is FUD.
As you wish...
> Windows is familiar; Linux is different.
There's more to it. Linux is different, but my opinion remains that, for interactive
tasks (i.e. every task involving user/computer interaction, I'm not speaking of servers
yet), Windows is far more efficient.
> Windows is
> well-capitalized, Linux is technically robust and dependable.
>
> >Of course, he realized quickly something about linux... a great potential, but
> >not much to talk of for the end user right now.
>
> Well, MS hasn't been broken up yet, so its no surprise there is still
> insufficient competition to provide for development of any system to the
> levels of "point and click" that Windows pretends to have. Note that it
> is shallow pretense, however, and your FUD is most obvious.
>
> >Which compared to Windows
> >(a system with an equally great unused potential, but with numerous features
> >for the end user), is a rather poor replacement...
>
> And this is simply an opinion. A rather trite, unproven, and incorrect
> opinion, but an opinion nevertheless. Unless we want to try to take it
> seriously, and consider what "unused potential" Windows might have in
> comparison to Linux,
Which we've been discussing for weeks on this newsgroup, so I won't start all
over again.
>or what a "feature for the end user" is,
Even I do not know what features are available for the end user on Windows...
until I try linux and find some of them missing.
> and how it
> differs from a trivial single capability which is used to attempt to
> obscure the real issues
....stability.... everybody around here thinking it's an end in itself....
understand what I mean, here ?
> or dishonestly influence the opinions of those
> who will be scared off of trying alternatives by dishonest statements
> such as yours. Then it becomes just more FUD.
At least it is based on arguments, not on comtempt over other people's opinions...
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> [A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
I was awaiting this one, you know ?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
You mean they are not under GPL ?
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:36:21 GMT
Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
8k5nr8$1qgcv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >I happen to be an end-user who happens to think Linux is great and has
> >many more features for the end-user then Windows. Perhaps, you can
> >point out the end-user features available on Windows not available on
> >Linux?
>
> The ability to regurlarly crash with a pretty blue screen which keeps me
> well employed having to continually have to repeat the hours of lost work
> this causes.
>
I'm still amazed by this one. My university is using mostly (~98%) NT/Win9x
computers. I must have seen about 2 or three BSODs over the last five months...
And three linux crashes... (on 2 machines)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:44:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >This is why:
>> >
>> >=== script output ===
>> >
>> >Mon Jul 10 13:42:15 SAST 2000
>> > 1:42pm up 28 days, 1:23, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.14, 0.29
>> >USER LINE LOGIN-TIME FROM
>> >nicc tty2 Jun 12 14:13
>> >nicc :0 Jul 5 15:07
>> >
>>
>> To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
>> meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up time
>> of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything. What does
>> that fact tell you?
>
>So, basically, what you are saying is that every minute of downtime
>is PLANNED, DELIBERATE downtime.
Nope, what I am saying is that uptime bragging is meaningless and worthless
unless taken in context.
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:48:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan
Rebbechi) wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:40:17 GMT, Paul E. Larson wrote:
>
>>To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
>>meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up time
>>of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything. What does
>>that fact tell you?
>
>One of the following:
>(a) The admins enjoy rebooting for the hell of it
>(b) The machine requires regular reboots
>
Neither.
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:48:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:40:17 GMT, Paul E. Larson wrote:
>>
>> >To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
>> >meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up
> time
>> >of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything. What does
>> >that fact tell you?
>>
>> One of the following:
>> (a) The admins enjoy rebooting for the hell of it
>
>Could be management policies that are hold-overs from the 70's.
>
Close.
>> (b) The machine requires regular reboots
>
>If case (b) applies, it's due to ill-behaved software (memory leaks).
>
Closer.
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:19:15 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 09 Jul 2000 19:16:12 -0400...
...and Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hint: The Linux port of Corel Office runs on an *emulator layer*, and
> > > > it's crap.
> > >
> > > Wine is an emulation layer?
> >
> > Correction: An API translation layer. (A thick one.)
>
> Does wine have to translate API's instead of just running them?
> This might be more of a performance hit than I thought.
How do you "run an API"?
Wine is an implementation of the Win32 API. But it needs to emulate
the Windows loader to be able to open and resolve Windows EXEs, DLLs
and such. It also needs to translate GDI into the X11 protocol. Stuff
like that.
mawa
--
MEIN HERZ F�LLT IN EIN LOCH
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:28:10 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:27:17 -0700...
...and Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ktop]
> Gnome probably has a similar tool.
Yes, gtop. Which absolutely rules -- at LinuxTag, we had a system
administrator at our booth who nearly decided to migrate an office
with 40 PCs to Linux and GNOME because he liked gtop so much :)
mawa
--
Old Japanese proverb:
There are two kinds of fools -- those who never climb Mt. Fuji,
and those who climb it twice.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:31:09 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:25:15 GMT...
...and Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > spin, spin troll
>
> This from the guy who believes an application programmer needs to
> understand how the OS scheduler works in order to write an application?
An application programmer usually doesn't need to, but he absolutely
*should*.
mawa
--
Get up.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:29:00 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:16:28 +0200...
...and Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What KDE and GNOME needs is a group of nontechies that has some
> demands that must be met and some kind of veto before a new version
> is released. This is the only way to ensure end-user friendlyness and to
> have other people like interfaceexperts and graphical artists to
> participate in the developemnt. I dont think this is going to happen some
> day soon
It has already happened. You haven't heard of the GNOME UI Improvement
Project, have you?
mawa
--
Old Japanese proverb:
There are two kinds of fools -- those who never climb Mt. Fuji,
and those who climb it twice.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:48:48 -0500
Nik Simpson wrote:
>
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Yep, and I'm going to assume that this is done via some magnificent
> > survey that does one of two things.
> >
> I would suspect it was done by querying the web servers at tithe Fortune 500
> companies concerned, it's not hard to do. If you question the results it
> would be easy to try and disprove them.
>
> --
> Nik Simpson
Well, if you read my post you would see that I wasn't trying to disprove
them. Even if the results are accurate it doesn't change the fact that
Linux works for me and for the others that use it. That probably
doesn't make the Windows advocates very happy, but I don't particularly
care. I use what works "for me". They use what works "for them". That
way, everyone gets what they "need" from their computing time.
Although, you are probably right. Who's to say the companies they chose
to query are truly representative of all companies. I don't know, but I
figure that any "poll" by a primarily (chose your OS here) based entity
is going to lean in favor of (chose your OS here) and not do anything to
try and correct false assumptions in favor of (chose your OS here).
Get my point?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:34:20 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have already said that there are some valid purposes for a port scan.
However, can you imagine a non-illicit purpose of *this* port scan. Given
that fact that I had already been using that IP address for more than
24-hours before the scan started--as well as the fact that the scan
continued for nearly half a day.
The better way to knock at the door is to just try to connect to the one or
two services of interest and not scan my ports for 11 hours, 27 minutes, and
4 seconds. An even better way to knock at the door would be to send me an
email to ask me if I am offering any network server for public access.
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8k9n09$il4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> : make you feel that it is alright for someone without your permission to
come
> : by and check all your exterior doors and windows to see if any were left
> : unlocked. Would you not consider that to be a hostile or at least
> : unfriendly act?
>
> This analogy is flawed by the fact that it assumes illicit activity is
> the only valid reason to make a scan. With portscanning that is not true
> at all. What if I want to find out, "Hey, do these guys have a webserver,
> or an FTP site, or something like that on one of their machines?", and
> I'm not doing it for ilicit reasons, but just becasue I want to visit
> their site if they have one? The notion that such actions should be
> immediately suspect is unfair. It's like saying that knocking on
> someone's door and saying, "helooo - anyone home?" is unethical because
> it *might* be something a burglar would do.
>
> Things I have portscanned for before, that I don't consider illicit:
>
> 1 - Accidentaly deleted a bookmark link, knew the site in question tended
> to run their websites on ports other than port 80, but I couldn't remember
> which one - so I make a quickie script that portscans, and when it finds
> a port that answers, it does a HTTP GET command to see if it responds
> like a webserver or not. Used this to find which nonstandard port the
> webserver was on.
>
> 2 - Had a legitimate account on a machine, but they weren't running
telnet.
> portscanned to figure out which alternate technique was set up (rsh,
> ssh, etc.)
------------------------------
From: darkstar51 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: License?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:48:15 GMT
I have a Red Hat CD. Can I install it on company computers. Is there
any License Agreement that I might violate? The Network Manager keeps
swearing you have to have a license.
Thanks,
darkstar51
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:51:05 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What about usng a 300 baud modem to connect a dumb terminal with a timeshare
system? -- Or worse than that, using a 150 baud link between a teletype and
the cpu using the teletype's paper punch tape to as your primary data
storage device?
When I first got a 14.4K modem it felt sooo nice, but you were lucky to get
a 9600K connection at that time. More often than not the other computers
were limited to 2400 Kbaud.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 14.4k?
>
> Ouch!!!!
>
> I thought I was doing bad a 28.8k...
>
> DP
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:05:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >Bernie "sitting behind a 14.4k modem line" Meyer
>
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:59:00 -0500
Yannick wrote:
> =
> Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit dans le messa=
ge :
> 8k5nr8$1qgcv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >I happen to be an end-user who happens to think Linux is great and h=
as
> > >many more features for the end-user then Windows. Perhaps, you can
> > >point out the end-user features available on Windows not available o=
n
> > >Linux?
> >
> > The ability to regurlarly crash with a pretty blue screen which keeps=
me
> > well employed having to continually have to repeat the hours of lost =
work
> > this causes.
> >
> =
> I'm still amazed by this one. My university is using mostly (~98%) NT/W=
in9x
> computers. I must have seen about 2 or three BSODs over the last five m=
onths...
> And three linux crashes... (on 2 machines)
I'm always curious when I see these sorts of statements. I have run
Linux for years now and have only seen two "crashes" on the dozens of
machines I have it running on. One was purposeful (I got everything
running I could think of and then shut off swap, it didn't really crash,
just ran out of memory and was so slow that I didn't have the patience
to get swap back up, reboot) and the other unintentional (one person
sent every customer acknowledgement in the system to the fax server at
one time in our current business, the fax server can only handle about
150 requests at one time, nearly 1,500 were sent, it died, but came
right back up after a reboot).
What is your definition of a Linux crash? You do know that when the GUI
locks up you can usually get to a console and kill the offending app
right? It is extremely rare to see Linux "crash", unless you are using
development kernels and alpha software for nearly every task. If your
hardware isn't faulty, I would say someone is screwing with those
systems in a very bad way. Of course, I have seen a system "crash" when
an NT administrator got ahold of one. Turned out he just figured out
how to telnet into the system, gain root (through su) and run shutdown
-h now. Is that the "crashing" you've seen? Just curious.
Crashing Linux is possible, so I don't want you thinking I'm accusing
you of lieing, I'm just curious under what conditions it happens. It is
such a rarity that it seems rather fantastical to see three crashes in
such a breif period of time without something screwy being done to the
machines in question.
-- =
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:02:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT) wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:40:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
>wrote in <B7ma5.10915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
>>meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up
>>time of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything.
>>What does that fact tell you?
>
>Too bad you don't realize long uptime means stability and reliability. Taking
Oh.... I do realize that there is a little bit of correllation between uptimes
and stability, hence the virtually meaningless instead of totally meaningless.
Unfortunately some people put too much emphasis on uptimes without regards to
what the machine does! We have at work a Windows95 PC that has been running
without reboot since the sub-department was formed 5-6 months ago. It is a
meaningless statistic, since all the 486 does is act as a Netware print
server.
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
