Linux-Advocacy Digest #546, Volume #29 Mon, 9 Oct 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? ("Chad")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad")
Re: linuxgames.com 3D Benchmarks (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Drestin Black")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Newbie: How do you setup 2 PC's using Rhat Linux 6.2? (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Gardiner Family)
Re: Linux Sucks (Gardiner Family)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Bartek Kostrzewa)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:12:40 -0000
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 17:53:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:50:00 -0400, BcB BcB <youdon'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Sorry but I just have to reply to this
>>
>>It seems to me that what claire is saying and what reality is are two
>>different things
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> We don't want compilers.
>>reality: I'll never develop a thing
>> it takes a mind to use software
>> it takes a greater mind to develop it
>
>And there are plenty of great minds out there that will never develop
>a single program. They simply use the applications.
The ironic bit about this particular "point" is the fact
that other varieties of Lemming will count this sort of
thing (pandering to developers) as a strength of WinDOS
and Microsoft in general.
Your fallacy is the notion that pandering to power users or
even programmers implies that a system can't also pander to
less hardcore users.
Jobs rather effectively disproved that idea a long time ago.
>
>
>>> We don't need 200 different text editors.
>>reality: I want to be mainstreamed to notepad nightmare.
>
>Reality: The average user doesn't need 1/100th of the development
>stuff that comes with the typical Linux distro.
>
>A nice CAD program, or Home Finance program or children's educational
>software like Clue Finders would be more useful.
All 3 of those can be had. Although, most mere mortals aren't
the sort to use a "nice" CAD program anyways. Engineering
utilities have no place in the ranting of an anti-intellectual.
[deletia]
--
Sometimes when you look into his eyes you get the feeling that someone
else is driving.
-- David Letterman
Say something you'll be sorry for, I love receiving apologies.
Now I lay me back to sleep.
The speaker's dull; the subject's deep.
If he should stop before I wake,
Give me a nudge for goodness' sake.
-- Anonymous
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:14:00 GMT
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP: maniacal rant>
Too much caffine.
Didn't you say you hated the U.S.? Maybe you should move
to Europe so we don't have to listen to you anymore.
*PL0NK*
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:29:02 GMT
chrisv wrote:
> >El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
> >>Because it's more precise and conveys more information?
> >
> >>Why convey little information to everyone when you can convey lots of
> >>information to a few?
>
> Jeezes, you (Richard) are a real moron, aren't you?
Hey, learn something about your own country, ignorant american loser.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:32:59 GMT
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:12:40 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Your fallacy is the notion that pandering to power users or
> even programmers implies that a system can't also pander to
> less hardcore users.
>
> Jobs rather effectively disproved that idea a long time ago.
No. My point is that until the typical Linux distribution comes with
programs average Jane actually wants, like a decent browser, it will
remain a toy for the geeks.
Again think home user, not back room server.
In that market, Linux is going absolutely no where. People are trying
for sure, but dumping it when they see what it's all about and who it
is aimed at.
To the programmers, for which Linux is a good choice, this doesn't
matter at all. Neither does cli vs gui. But to those Linux supporters
who think Linux is challenging Windows for the desktop, think again.
It's not, and until applications like I've mentioned are the focus
(typical home user stuff that is at least the equal of the Windows
variety, not some stripped half clone) it never will be.
claire
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:34:35 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [...]
> >It is not the OS vendor's responsibility to make their system API's
> >easily clonable.
>
> Blah blah blah.
>
> >In fact it has typically been seen as contrary to
> >their interests. The various Unix vendors, for instance, have <yet> to
> >create a common Unix standard set of system API's.
>
> I guess POSIX doesn't count.
POSIX is too basic. The point he's trying to make is, even though
people say Unix is Unix is Unix, there are still apps that only work
on HP-UX, or Solaris, or Linux. If they have a common API, why is this the
case?
What's to prevent Linux from one day having incompatible distributions?
>
> [...]
> >> Win32 is a documentation of 'whatever the hell random and bizarre
> >> anti-competitive crap' that Microsoft writes, and then retroactively
> >> faces the industry with trying to use.
> >
> >How is the win32 API anti-competitive? Saying so doesn't make it so.
>
> How it is pro-competitive. Saying it doesn't make it so.
It's pro-competitive because it's probably the most thoroughly documented
API of it's size in existance. If not, then it's definately up with the
top.
The computing industry as a whole has yet to match a documentation effort
the size, functionality, and usefulness of the MSDN Library online
(msdn.microsoft.com).
Rumors and FUD of "undocumented" or "secret" Win32 APIs that only
Microsoft uses or creates are merely that... rumors and FUD.
Even the products the FUDsters claim use these secrets manage to
run on older versions of Windows that wouldn't have had these
secrets.
> >At the time it was introduced, keep in mind that the MacOS and OS/2 had
> >been out for longer periods of time (not to mention BSD, which had been
> >around forever).
>
> I'm not concerned about the time it was produced; you are trying to
> objectify the API in appropriately. Win32 is anti-competitive crap
> because that's what Microsoft wants it to be.
Lie, conjecture. Please stick to the facts, and, perhaps what you know,
which obviously isn't very much.
> As for how it is anti-competitive, the most obvious example to come to
> mind is that it includes web browser functionality, implemented with\
> the specific intent of preventing competition.
You're referring to the GUI (explorer.exe) specifically. I thought
we were talking about the Win32 API? The Win32 API has no dependance
upon IE.
Besides, how come every other OS is allowed to package and include
browser technologies in their OS, but when Microsoft does it, it's
bad?
I see almost everyone (KDE, Gnome, Apple/MacOS, Be, etc) including
browser-style or browser-dependant technologies into their GUIs.
This is a feature enhancement. I know of very few GUI-using people
who can do without their browser-style file viewing (with the
Back,Up,Forward,Favorites style interface). This did nothing
to hurt competition (namely Netscape). Netscape had already
shot themselves in the foot several times, ignored the trends
of the market, continued to bilk their customers without giving
them any new technology, refused to improve their browser
(Netscape 4.x? Give me a break, that has to be among the worst
software ever written), etc. They killed themselves, MS had
nothing to do with it except for building a better browser.
Last I checked, improving your product to beat competition for
profit isn't illegal nor unethical.
> >> >If Microsoft is a lousy, anticompetitive company, or if Win32 doesn't
> >> >work on other platforms -- neither one of those makes the API
> >> >unworkable.
> >>
> >> I didn't describe it as unworkable; that was Simon Cooke, who was,
> >> characteristically, building a straw man. I said it was crap. And both
> >> of those things you mentioned are the same thing, and the reason Win32
> >> is crap. The evidence it is crap is the fact that WINE can't even get
> >> the simplest text edit functions of the API to work, though any
> >> programmer can get it to work in their apps using any flavor or Windows.
> >> This indicates clearly, I think, the fact that the Microsoft's software
> >> is crap, and the Win32 API was designed to support anti-competitive
> >> strategies, not good software. Its crap.
> >
> >How? All it indicates is that mapping the Win32 API to the X Window
> >System API is hard.
> So that would be one thing that makes it crap; its inconsistent with the
> industry standard. ;-\
Or that the WINE developers (or Open Sores(tm)) in general aren't competent
enough to retro fit Win32 in to the tattered X API(s)?
-Chad
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:44:09 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linuxgames.com 3D Benchmarks
Todd wrote:
>
> "Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A list of VERY comprehensive and exhaustive benchmarks comparing Windows
> > to Linux, Linux to Windows, NVidia to Matrox to 3DFX etc.. have fun!
> >
> > http://www.linuxgames.com/articles/nextgen3d/
>
> I thought the review was very informative and unbiased. A very good
> resource indeed for Linux gamers. I guess Nvidia products do it again... on
> both platforms. <sigh> I was hoping for 3dfx to catch back up to Nvidia...
Well, the problem mainly lies in the DRI driver (on Linux), as soon as
pageflipping, multitexture and the 2nd processor are supported, the V5
will probably rock too!
Oh, and NVidia's scores are lower only because XF4.0.1 can't do
pageflipping yet, so when that comes, Linux will be *probably* (take
with a grain of salt) be faster due to it's full 32bit design.
>
> > Oh, Todd, yes the Linux scores are lower, but do 10 FPS at 100 FPS
> > really matter? :)
>
> Well, some of the scores were much more disparate than that... some of the
> Windows scores were more than twice as fast as the Linux equivalent... but I
> guess that is due to poor drivers.
Yeah, DRI has lots of problems currently... :(
>
> However, you can't say that "Linux blows away Winblows" since Windows won
> out in most areas by a significant margin.
Did I say that?
But what I CAN say is : Linux blows Windows in UT on Nvidia hardware :)
(ok, 16bit...)
>
> You know, MS could sabotage Linux by taking out support of OpenGL (or at
> least crippling it for games) from Windows... then game developers would be
> forced to choose to write their games for Windows (D3D), or Linux
> (OpenGL)... guess which one they would choose to write for?
Hmm... I don't think so, OpenGL is an open library and can be included
with anything, so I don't think MS could block OpenGL development... and
they would lose Maya, 3DSMax etc.. for NT & 2000 ... so...
And, if they can block out one library, they will block out more and
more libraries, and *bang* another lawsuit, which they would lose for
sure.
>
> With the X-Box coming, it may force more developers to use DirectX 8 (D3D)
> instead of OpenGL... actually DirectX APIs are a lot better (and a ton
> faster) since version 7.
Sometimes it's faster, on NVidia's hardware OpenGL clearly does the
trick better in some games.
I think the DirectX API is not all that great, take a look at SDL,
that's how the DirectX API should look behind the scenes (or at the
developper front-end if you want).
>
> Oh well... interesting that some game developers are making ports to Linux.
> I really wonder how much revenue they pull out of Linux sales?
Acutally currently there is LOKI (www.lokigames.com) who are doing A LOT
of ports (30 per year to be expected, counter starting Jan 2001), then
there is Dynamix who will port Tribes 2, and some others, it's not
significant yet, but we're getting to it.
>
> -Todd
>
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 9 Oct 2000 13:47:04 -0500
http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux creator
Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the next
Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000 or
early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original due to
ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued that
the open source development model is superior to the closed, monolithic
models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both Linux and
Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
"...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for database
servers or online transaction processing. The independent software vendor
support [is not there]"
<yawn>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 9 Oct 2000 13:47:07 -0500
How do you know?
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yahoo uses BSD UNIX.
>
> matt
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> > on Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:54:17 GMT
> > <ZR_C5.25757$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > >"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> adam, gid-day from a fellow kiwi. Here are some sites that use
> > >> linux/UNIX for their website:
> > >>
> > >> WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand)
> > >> New Zealand Government Website
> > >> Telecom
> > >> ihug
> > >> zfree
> > >> majority of proxy servers in New Zealand
> > >> RNBNZ (IBM AIX)
> > >
> > >Wow, what a list. The combined total number of hits/day of all those
sites
> > >is what? 1 million? 2 million?
> > >
> > >What about:
> > >
> > >Barnesandnoble.com
> > >Dell.com } The top eCommerce sites in the world
> > >Gigabuys.com }
> > >microsoft.com
> > >ebay.com
> > >hotmail.com
> > >and on and on and on...
> > >
> > >All of which run NT 4.0 or Windows 2000 and all of which get
> > >millions of hits per day.
> >
> > I can verify the fact that they run IIS, anyway. And they do.
> > Even hotmail.
> >
> > Interestingly, yahoo (www.yahoo.com) does not report what server
> > it uses and botched the HEAD request to boot (cf RFC2068, section
> > 9.4). My understanding is that yahoo is one of the busiest servers
> > in the world, but apparently at this moment it's not one of
> > the most compliant. :-) (The problem may lie elsewhere;
> > www.yahoo.com got mutated to www.yahoo.akadns.net when I telnetted
> > into port 80.)
> >
> > The problem with Netcraft's basic survey methodology is that it can't
> > distinguish between a very high traffic website, such as the
> > ones mentioned above, and a vanity website that's set up on
> > a 56k line in someone's garage.
> >
> > Netcraft does try to rectify that, apparently, based on their
> > explanation further down on their website at:
> >
> > http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
> >
> > so perhaps they aren't quite as dumb as I am. :-)
> > But Microsoft does have 19.56% of the market, and I suspect
> > many of those are middle-end and high-end corporate websites
> > (in other words, those that can afford both a license and
> > a support contract.)
> >
> > It's ridiculously easy to set up an Apache server (all the default
> > distributions AFAIK have one as part of their install options, and it
> > hits the ground running with a "success" page, all ready to be probed
> > by Netcraft, among others), but it's far from clear how many of them
> > are actually doing something useful.
> >
> > I hope Netcraft has the brains to remove hostnames
> > such as 'paix-alg-gw8-2.ncal.verio.com'. (I'm not quite sure
> > how one would do such, admittedly; one possibility is a crawler
> > methodology similar to those employed by Yahoo, Lycos, Webcrawler,
> > or Infoseek.)
> >
> > >
> > >> the list goes on and on, Windows NT is a product that never lived
> > >> up to its supposed "UNIX Smashing" reputation that was originally
> > >> declared by bill gates back in 1993-1994.
> > >
> > >See above...
> >
> > NT/W2k is clearly far from being dead. Dunno about WinMe and
> > "Whistler"; WinMe is a bridge product; "Whistler" has been promised
> > in some form ever since the Cairo days, eliminating the Win/DOS split
> > that has existed in some form ever since the Windows 3.1 days,
> > and possibly even earlier.
> >
> > We'll see.
> >
> > >
> > >-Chad
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:47:36 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie: How do you setup 2 PC's using Rhat Linux 6.2?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi, I have 2 PCs that I'd like to setup together to
> learn Apache webserver, printer server and DNS. Can
> someone help me please.
>
> I have 2 NIC cards (NE2000), 1 hub and Rhat Linux 6.2.
>
> Can someone give me the step-by-step procedure?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Leo
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
I'd say, got for the best newsgroup first, comp.os.linux.networking
should do the trick better than advocacy :)
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 9 Oct 2000 13:53:03 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rr995$17l2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8roql5$mit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> >> Where is it again? [Windows 2000 Data Center]
> >>
> >> > It's released and in use already.
> >>
> >> Where?
>
> > <snip>
>
> > did you even read further down where you replied before you wrote
"Where?"
> > See, you KNOW it's been released but you play stupid (it's comes easily
I
> > understand)...
>
>
> >> > small starting point:
> >> >
> >
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/studies/default.asp
> >>
> >> Ah. Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to touching
IBM
> >> in any way, shape or form.
> >>
>
> > Let me requote this again: "Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even
come
> > close to touching IBM in any way, shape or form."
>
> > OK, lets go here (you said ANY way):
> > http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc
>
> > Lets see: IBM's ultimate very best attempt ever: 440,879 tpm/C for
> > $14,232,696.
>
> > Wait, what's ABOVE it (in 1st place): microsoft/compaq: 505,302 tpm/C
for
> > only $10,445,169.
>
> > Why, what's this? ms/compaq 15% faster and 36% less expensive.
>
> Youve missed something rather large here, which I have no intention of
> teaching you, but has something to do with this: The compaq machine
tested
> is the absolute top of the line piece of hardware that they make. Its
> compaqs flagship model. It doesnt get better than that.
>
> The IBM machine tested, on the other hand, is an ultimately upgraded
> representation of their intel-based webserver product.
>
So, does this actually make sense? IBM decides to test their NOT best
product against everyone elses best?
I mean, think about it. What sense does it make for IBM to not use their
best possible performer? Why are they holding back, if you are to be
believed. Why would they allow themselves to be beaten? I don't think so.
AND, while it is the best Compaq they have available today - no one suggests
it's the end of the road for thier developement. Compaq has 32 processor
beasties coming out that run W2K datacenter which will eat the previous best
scores for lunch.
So - if you are to be believe then IBM is incredibly stupid and
intentionally set themselves up to fail.
(if that is true then I wouldn't want to buy equipment from them even if it
is better - cause the company behind it is as stupid as you).
meanwhile, I'll believe the truth is that IBM gave it their best shot and
couldn't beat Compaq/MS.
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:54:05 +1300
The argument is that when the original time was set they were over ambicious,
however, I say, its ready when it is ready, Linux developers want this version
of the Linux Kernel to be as stable as possible, not like microsoft that shifts
half baked products to the market place and then crys foul when a bug is found.
Matt
Drestin Black wrote:
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
>
> Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux creator
> Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the next
> Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000 or
> early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original due to
> ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
>
> ...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued that
> the open source development model is superior to the closed, monolithic
> models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both Linux and
> Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
> schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
>
> "...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
> services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for database
> servers or online transaction processing. The independent software vendor
> support [is not there]"
>
> <yawn>
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:56:50 +1300
It is amazing how you have all this experience yet find it hard to use Linux? Or
have you used a commercial UNIX and simpling saying Linux is not up to the standard
of commercial Operating Systems?
matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Like I said in another thread, you hadn't even been hatched yet when I
> was already working in IT...
>
> claire
>
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:55:00 +1300, Gardiner Family
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I got my first computer at the age of 7 (Amiga 500), I unlike most users, read
> >book after book, knowing the in's and out's of computers, I taught my self how
> >to program in AmigaBASIC. Unless you are willing to learn new things you will
> >be stuck in the same place for the rest of your life.
> >
> >matt
> >
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 9 Oct 2000 13:58:05 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rr80l$17l2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8roqhs$mit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8rlb8a$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> Drestin Black wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > what? WHAT?
> >> > hahahahhahhhahahahahhhahahahaahhahhahhaahhhahahaahhaha
> >> >> >> > > > <breath>
> >> >> >> > > > hahahahhhahhahahahahahahaaahahahahahaaahahahhahahhaha
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > No you know whe he's called Dresting LACK of facts...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "No"? Perhaps you'd like to learn to spell/type before
making
> > shit
> >> > up
> >> >> > eh?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Drestin Lack of facts.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Happy now
> >> >>
> >> >> > I'll be happy when you go away and stop using up bandwidth with
that
> >> >> > self-mocking .sig of yours (hasn't anyone told you how stupid it
> > makes
> >> > you
> >> >> > look)?
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, a more appropriate term for what his sig uses is "disk
> > space".
> >>
> >> > Actually, it's both so quite pretending to know something. Given that
> > disk
> >> > space is incredibly cheap who cares ... given that bandwidth
continues
> > to be
> >> > a premium item reducing redudant transmitted data is something...
> >>
> >> You have no idea what youre talking about.
> >>
> >> Tell me dresden, how large is usenet? I'll take a GB per day figure.
> >>
>
> > something like 13 gigs and 350,000 articles a day or so, who knows, I
don't
> > really keep track of such stuff.
>
> Huh. That time you were off by nearly a factor of 5, including binaries.
>
> > So? The facts remain that disk storage is
> > dirt cheap - terabytes are a yawn. But, try moving that real time -
> > bandwidth... there's the issue.
>
> And how much ingress do you think a news server that carries a full feed
> is doing?
>
> I'm watching one right now. Lets see how close you can get.
I wrote my reply to the wrong sentence. I believe the INGRESS is 13 gigs and
350,000 articles a day OR SO. As I wrote, I really don't keep track of such
things, but a guy I know who works at an ISP mentioned that figure some time
ago. I don't work at an ISP nor do I spend time watching news servers. Do
you fetch coffee for the system administrator too?
You do know the larger the number you produce the stronger you make my
argument right?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:58:46 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
>
> Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux creator
> Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the next
> Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000 or
> early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original due to
> ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
Yes, indeed, it's tremendously delayed! But wait, 2.2 was also delayed,
2.x were delayed too, what can we gather from this? 2.4 is yet another
MAJOR upgrade, it will kick butt. I'm happily waiting, if I get what
2.4-test9 shows off already, but stable.
>
> ...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued that
> the open source development model is superior to the closed, monolithic
> models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both Linux and
> Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
> schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
Hmm, I don't think so, the Linux kernel is in a very controlled
development process, that's why it takes so long. Unlike M$, Linux just
doesn't want to make something official that might still crash randomly.
>
> "...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
> services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for database
> servers or online transaction processing. The independent software vendor
> support [is not there]"
Huh? Humm, not for databases? Euhmm... ORACLE!
Transaction processing... I have no information on this topic.. hmm,
might be worth to take a deeper look at the possibilities.
>
> <yawn>
Yeah, I'm tired of biased reviews too.
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
