Linux-Advocacy Digest #577, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 15:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Paul 'Z'
Ewande�")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Paul 'Z' Ewande�")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Darin Johnson)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
apt-get like tools on redhat? (Walter Tautz)
Re: ext2 file size limit? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Darin Johnson)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Sam Morris")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: Linux Sucks
Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Darin Johnson)
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Darin Johnson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[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 20:06:15 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:44:06 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande�
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> ><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >
> >> >Well, there are things as installed user base to support, capabilities
of
> >> >the hardware current at the time to take into considerations. Of
course
> >you
> >>
> >> The 386 dates back to 1985.
> >
> >Were they the majorities at the time ?
>
> Do you plan your own life with this level of foresight?
Always in motion is the future. What has it got to do with the matter at
hand anyway ?
> That doesn't matter. The point is that Microsoft had quite
> a few years to prepare for the inevitable dominance of the
> IA32 architecture in their little niche.
Well, they seem to be actually dominating that IA32 architecture, so IMO,
they didn't do all wrong.
There you can put some conspiracy as to why MS dominates th x86 market
theories if you feel like it here. :)
<...>
> Windows itself was a dog on anything less than a 386, so
> targeting anything less was fairly senseless. Although
> they could still abstract the system enough to make that
> not an issue anyways.
apparently, it nevertheless paid of to them.
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
PAul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:10:02 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Part where Jedi admits that the toy OS cluster more than matches the
'real' OS single servers </SNIP>
> Where is the single NT based server that can do 160K TPM?
No where to be seen.
Where is the real OS cluster that puts out more than 500K TPM ?
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:54:50 GMT
"D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Having information available for using the APIs is not the same thing
> as having information available for cloning the APIs.
Very true. Getting 100% perfectly written apps to work is easy. But
there are the broken apps that the DLL's accomodate, and the apps that
rely on undocumented-but-well-known behavior, etc.
Ie, like in the UNIX world when people used to free() then malloc()
right away, rather than using realloc(). Against the rules, but it
worked on certain varieties. Or not bothering to free all memory
because you know it'll be freed when the process exits, etc.
The UNIX world has had to deal with portability issues for a long
time. So it's developers generally know that you should follow
the rules pretty closely even if the system is forgiving. The Windows
world generaly doesn't port software. Oh sure, there's a few that
worry about 95 vs NT vs 2000 vs CE issues, and maybe even some that
also worry about MacOS, but by and large, "portability" in the Windows
world means little.
Many Windows developers, and the apps, don't stick 100% to the
documented API. They stick to what works. If it ain't broke, they
don't fix it just because someone may want to port it to a different
version of Win32. Worse, a lot of developers learn their techniques
from "sample" source code from Microsoft - some of the worst code I've
ever seen, the code actively violates Microsoft's own guidelines,
hasn't been updated from Win3.1, and often doesn't work (I'm nearly
positive the stuff is written by new hires to get them used to life at
MS).
So, Microsoft's Win32 is forgiving. Any alternate implementation of
Win32 needs to be just as forgiving.
And all of you that keep saying "it's easy, it's well documented, the
WINE folks are just morons", then why don't you show them how it's
done and write the chunks of code you think is easy? Oh, I see, those
that know how to do it right have no interest in alternatives.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:08:49 GMT
Dolly wrote:
>
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > "Mike Byrns" <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Rd2E5.118331$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Dolly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sam wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:03:43 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Is of course Linux.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exclusively ? I think not!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >The power of Linux is of course the GNU/GPL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It may also be it's weakness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Does everybody agree that Linux has the best desktop? NO, HELL NO!
> > > > > > >Is Linux still growing? YES HELL YES!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From zero it's all up from there
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >How fast is Microsoft growing on that hill top? 1%.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Microsoft kept growing at the rate it did for the last 5-10-15-20
> > > > > > years (pick one) it would soon be, not only the total IT industry,
> > > > > > but the entire economy. Obviously not sustainable
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >How fast is Linux growing? 5 - 7 % per year for almost 8 years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From zero it's all up from there
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Does Microsoft make hardware? Hardly, NO. That Microsoft mouse or
> > > > > > >keyboard is subcontracted out.
> > > > > > >They don't make anything but software.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AMD don't own a fab shop, does that make them not a threat to Intel ?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? That's weird... AMD has MADE chips for
> > > > > Intel when Intel couldnt keep up... what do you
> > > > > think the little M AMD meant? MANUFACTURED by
> > > > > AMD. I have a bunch here they made for Intel.
> > > > > It's part of what gained them access to the
> > > > > Intel x86 architecture - making a bunch for
> > > > > Intel when they were in the bind.
> > > >
> > > > Christ are you going to be one of those Kulkis, Devlins and Blacks that
> > > > make these wild ass statements that stretch credibility and then post no
> > > > evidence to back it up? When the hell was this momentus event supposed to
> > > > have happened? AMD did make 386 and 486 chips but they were NOT Intel
> > > > designs. BTW, I agree with you that AMD do own fabs, in Texas and Germany
> > > > but I, after having been a Intel and Microsoft systems engineer and
> > > > programmer for over a decade have no recollection of AMD EVER making chips
> > > > for Intel.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Excuse me?! I always backup my "wild ass" statements. Ask me of something I
> > > didn't support with evidence. Don't you DARE lump me in with Kulkis or
> > > whoever that other dude is.
> >
> > Then start being a little more temperate. It pains me to see Windows folks come
> > across just as wacko as the rabid Mac and Linux fanatics. Think about it --
> > there's really no reason to do so. Windows is the best mix of all they have to
> > offer -- there's no reason to get bent when rebutting these folks. Don't sink
> > to their losing methods. You obviously know your stuff. Why not beat them with
> > facts and logic. It's not any more difficult than getting emotional and quite a
> > bit more satisfying at least for me!
>
> More links so you dont get as emotional
> (as in past responses to my posts) that
> way you dont further invalidate your
> above claim.
>
> This shows the start of the decline - 1.5 years ago
> 1.4 million clients analyzed...
> http://leb.net/hzo/ioscount/data/r.9904.txt
European Education numbers? That's convincing. Most on LANs by the
number of "HP/JETdirect Printers" represented. How about some global
numbers?
> And from CNET:
>
> "update Linux will pose a significant threat
> to Microsoft for market share among server
> operating systems over the next few years,
> according to new research released today."
>
> It links to IDC but doesnt give the specifics
> of the new info... and the rest of the article is
> the old out of date info... but still indicates
> a decline on MS's part.
>
> http://www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2332817.html
>
> http://www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1546430.html
Funny how that table show shows NT market share at 38% in 1998 and, well
whaddya know, still 38% in 1999! No decline. And it proves that Linux
is NOT hitting the Windows market share it's killing Netware and other
UNIXen. But that's just servers.
>
> Here's another... if yu pay for membership, you will
> see Linux getting higher, OS/2 reversing it's momentum
> as well, and NT dropping quicker than ever.
>
> http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=00&quar=99Q2&99245003.htm=on
That page shows .2% variance that could easily be attributable to
statistical error. What it does show again is that Linux is simply
raping UNIX and Novell of their market share while NT stays right where
it is "on top". Growth from 1.2 million units shipped to 1.6 is 25%
growth -- not decline.
>
> And in the banking world... old news...
>
> 1997:
> http://www.seds.org/~spider/os2/ibmpr.html
Link is down. Must be running on OS/2. :-)
> Continued in 2000:
> As of today, this trend is definitely continuing.
> Ask Bank Of America who just signed on for a 5 digit
> number of more OS/2 clients for a bank they just
> acquired... and guess who's losing the marketshare
> there? (Bank of America - May 2000)
So a few thousand OS/2 clients? Probably to support a proprietary IBM
banking solution. Hardly a trend. Especially when there's NO
announcement of any new version of OS/2.
> [o/t]
> Here's an interesting one on how articles that
> somehow dont mention how great WinXX is dissappear.
>
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.pcworld.com/current_issue/article/0,1212,11012%2B1%2B5,00.html+operating+system+market+share
July of 99? How long do you expect them to keep these pages around?
That was part of their 1999 Best Products roundup. The 2000 roundup is
more telling. http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article.asp?aid=16789&pg=3
Windows 2000 is the best OS of 2000 according to PC World. I think they
were just bored of NT4 :-)
> Cant go to the page since it's changed, can only load it
> from cache... that was weird....
Not weird. PCWorld just underwent a site wide overhaul of content.
It's possible they haven't brought all the old stuff back online. Wait I
found it, they just moved it to
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article.asp?aid=11012&pg=6. No
conspiracy theory needed. Hey by the way what's that site running
anyway? http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.pcworld.com
> You can look for plenty more. Every article supports
> the same thing with figures from 1% to 15% decline
> depending on the timeframe they are talking, and when
> the article was written. The more recent ones show
> far bigger declines.
So far the only decline you've been able to muster is .2% from two year
old market share data that wasn't backed up by your other data. What
you have shown (not be choice I'm sure) is that all the Linux market
share is being gained at the expense of the other UNIXen and Netware.
Windows NT/2000 shops are not switching and unit sales of new Microsoft
Server OSs are increasing at more than 25% year on year. Sure Linux is
making some inroads on the server -- how could it not? It does for the
UNIX folks what used to cost them an arm and a leg and does it for
less. That doesn't change the fact that UNIX or any flavor is more
expensive to support than Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:09:26 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Which of course explains why all my apps inexplicably stop working every
few
> >months when they "move the target" and change *all* of the APIs.
> >
> >Come on... I mean, heck, WINE should have a good copy of Win3.1 by now at
> >least. That target stopped moving in 1995. That was 5 years ago.
>
> Ha. You forget; MS updates system DLLs with app upgrades; every version
> of Office and IE have 'moved the target', as well as the 'service packs'
> and such. You act like Bill Gates didn't actually admit to the scam
> (internally, at least, but in now-public emails).
Max -- explain why my apps still work? Explain why apps I bought in 1996
still work today on a machine in 2000?
Looks like they've not "moved the target" much.
Also, Windows 3.1 is STILL stable, and hasn't been updated in YEARS.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Walter Tautz)
Subject: apt-get like tools on redhat?
Date: 10 Oct 2000 17:38:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am curious to know if apt-get like tool exists for
Redhat. I am rather fond of being able to do
apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
or apt-get dist-upgrade to get the latest release?
>From what some people tell me is you ftp a bunch of rpms
and then run rpm -F (freshen )?
I am currently running debian and redhat. I like the simpler command
line options of rpm when compared to dpkg... Some technical evaluations
would be helpful.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: ext2 file size limit?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:03:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> jdavida writes:
>
> > I am runnign Linux 2.4 and it supports
> > files > 2GB. See /usr/include/bits/stat.h
> > and look at struct stat64, which supports file size
> > up to 1 TB (always half of max filesystem size), because
> > file size is a signed data type.
> > You will have to define
> > __USE_LARGEFILE64 when you create the file with
> Check <features.h> - __USE_LARGEFILE64 cannot be defined by user
> space
Correct. You should define
#define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE 1
instead. This define should come before
including the header files. This will
enable the use of large files greater than
2 Gig. Unfortunately, user commands and utils
like ls(1) and stat(1) will not work: See the
following:
# ls -l
/bin/ls: BIG4GIG: Value too large for defined data type
/bin/ls: BIG4GIG2: Value too large for defined data type
total 0
Both of these files are 4gigabytes large!!
I created them by a simple program that
wrote a large buffer to the file in a loop
that brought the size to 4 gig, and exited
normally.
Cheers,
Joe
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:11:40 GMT
"Fr�d�ric G. MARAND" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rv1g4$59b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quite simple. Install PTC ProductView. Use a VGA driver, an MS mouse. Then
> start the Engineering Data Server service. BSOD. And it's not a driver,
just
> a very "applicative" application.
... and one that I've never heard of. Links?
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:14:12 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:00:04 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >Well, the loosely coupled cluster nevertheless embarrassed IBM enough for
>> >them to set up one and grab first place, to be later beaten by a Compaq
>> >cluster.
>>
>> Do you really think IBM is that coherent?
>
>To speak the truth, IBM did some really strange things. Who know ? :)
>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> There is still no compaq that can do 160K TPM.
>
>Agreed, but there is *currently* no other offering that tops that Compaq
>cluster's 500K TPM.
No, there's just noone else that has bothered with the benchmark.
Once you get to a cluster, using completely separate databases
for an application of that kind isn't much further of a stretch.
--
A diplomat is a man who can convince his wife she'd look stout in a fur coat.
Information is the inverse of entropy.
Absent, adj.:
Exposed to the attacks of friends and acquaintances; defamed; slandered.
------------------------------
From: [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 18:14:51 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:41:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Name calling again..
If the slur fits.
Besides, it was a response to same.
>
>claire
>
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:06:02 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
>wrote:
>
>
>> You are saying this to someone who prefers VMS when the
>> load gets really interesing. You are just another Lemming
>> fool that thinks that the whole world is just as stupid
>> as you are.
>
--
Class: when they're running you out of town, to look like you're
leading the parade.
-- Bill Battie
I'm going to Vietnam at the request of the White House. President Johnson
says a war isn't really a war without my jokes.
-- Bob Hope
Please keep your hands off the secretary's reproducing equipment.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:11:24 GMT
"James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well then, NT must be ok - it's POSIX compliant according to the US
> Government, the source of all goodness in the competitive arena
> according to you.
POSIX compliance is really a joke. IBM Mainframes have even been made
POSIX compiant in the past, which is pretty amazing for something that
doesn't even have character I/O. In general, POSIX compliance done in
oder to meet a list of requirements on a contract, after which the
customer ignores the POSIX part (either because it turned out to be
unusable, like the NT POSIX, or because they didn't want POSIX but
were mandated by the government to require it).
k
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:19:42 +0100
This _has_ been an interesting thread!
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
From: [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 18:22:58 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:06:15 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:44:06 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande�
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> ><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>> >
>> >> >Well, there are things as installed user base to support, capabilities
>of
>> >> >the hardware current at the time to take into considerations. Of
>course
>> >you
>> >>
>> >> The 386 dates back to 1985.
>> >
>> >Were they the majorities at the time ?
>>
>> Do you plan your own life with this level of foresight?
>
>Always in motion is the future. What has it got to do with the matter at
>hand anyway ?
Atari had a flat memory GUI system. Commode Door had a flat
memory GUI system. Apple had a flat memory GUI system. All
of the more serious operating systems of that day were
operating in considerably more abstract terms.
Infact, Intel was a bit backwards in this regards. If they
were going 32bit by 1985, it was pretty obvious that the
market is headed that way. Motorola had already one so
8 years earlier.
This wasn't just the future, it was the present back then.
Plus, the players in question had enough prior experience
with the industry in practice to know where things were
heading.
It only seems/seemed like the future to users obsessed with DOS.
>
>> That doesn't matter. The point is that Microsoft had quite
>> a few years to prepare for the inevitable dominance of the
>> IA32 architecture in their little niche.
>
>Well, they seem to be actually dominating that IA32 architecture, so IMO,
>they didn't do all wrong.
That has less to do with technology than it does the natural
compatibility barriers that arise in software.
>
>There you can put some conspiracy as to why MS dominates th x86 market
>theories if you feel like it here. :)
Why do you find it necessary to indulge in some lame form
of guilt by association?
>
><...>
>
>
>> Windows itself was a dog on anything less than a 386, so
>> targeting anything less was fairly senseless. Although
>> they could still abstract the system enough to make that
>> not an issue anyways.
>
>apparently, it nevertheless paid of to them.
Once again, the Lemming paying no heed to the needs of the
poor end user. We don't really give a damn about Billy-bob's
stock options. We want product that actually works.
[deletia]
That is why for many of us the Win32 gui was our 4th or 5th.
We chose not to wait for Microsoft to get it's act together.
--
QOTD:
My mother was the travel agent for guilt trips.
"The wages of sin are death; but after they're done taking out taxes,
it's just a tired feeling:"
It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you look playing the game.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:24:01 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:44:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>So SuSE has offices in God knows how many countries just out of the
>goodness of their heart and the spreading of that joy we all know as
>Linux?
Neither of your assertions have any relation to the point
you are attempting to prove.
>
>It's all about money and making the real big money means taking market
>share from Microsoft on the desktop.
>
>claire
>
>
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:29:01 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:57:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>It seems to matter to the folks that think they are going to make a
>>>fortune off Linux, Like Redhat, SuSE etc.
>>
>> Actually, the sorts of things your talking about have little
>> to no relevance to Suse. They're more relevant to the likes
>> of SGI or IBM.
>>
>>>Do you honestly believe they are not trying to take market share away
>>>from Windows?
>>>
>>>Your head is up your *** if you do..
>>>
>>>claire
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:12:48 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
>>>Warkus) wrote:
>>>
>>>>It was the Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:15:47 GMT...
>>>>...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> And if it doesn't get it's ass in gear it will remain a niche' system.
>>>>
>>>>And nobody gives a damn about whether it will or won't except for a
>>>>certain sad git without a real name.
>>>>
>>>>mawa
>>>
>
--
You will triumph over your enemy.
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan
This is for all ill-treated fellows
Unborn and unbegot,
For them to read when they're in trouble
And I am not.
-- A. E. Housman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:25:44 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:10:02 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Part where Jedi admits that the toy OS cluster more than matches the
>'real' OS single servers </SNIP>
>
>> Where is the single NT based server that can do 160K TPM?
>
>No where to be seen.
>
>Where is the real OS cluster that puts out more than 500K TPM ?
Just partition your data.
Do that well enough such that your Compaq cluster will work
and you can just have a collection of discrete database
instances.
--
Nice guys get sick.
Nothing is ever a total loss; it can always serve as a bad example.
A clash of doctrine is not a disaster -- it is an opportunity.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:21:30 GMT
> : 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?
>
> Because they're closed-source.
More importantly, peer pressure and customer pressure.
Those apps may not survive long if they can't be moved to new OS's.
Windows developers on the other hand generally don't meet a hostile
crowd if they write an app that only run on Microsoft OS's.
In fact, the few apps I know of that are stuck on one commercial UNIX
have some good reasons. First, the company may be small, and
supporting multiple binaries is expensive (even if it's just a simple
recompile, it means you need more QA, more machines to do QA on,
different packaging, more sales training, new marketting channels,
etc). Ie, the same reason many companies who used to support MacOS
now stick solely to Windows. Second, the software may need some
"value add" or be integrated at a very low level (ie, Clearcase needs
hooks into the kernel so it can implement it's own filesystem, sort of
equivalent to relying on the DDK instead of the SDK).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:28:17 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:46:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Never liked EE much and there is far more money in I/T.
Odd that you chose to persue a degree in it...
[deletia]
--
Put a rogue in the limelight and he will act like an honest man.
-- Napoleon Bonaparte, "Maxims"
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I'll burn my books.
-- Christopher Marlowe
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:29:03 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does not Unix also have a checkered past in these regards? Wasn't
> one of Unix's biggest downfalls (e.g. it's only on servers for the
> most part, not 9x% of the desktops) it's fragmentation and
> incompatibilities?
The biggest advantage too - because that competition caused cross
fertilization, and thus there's a better product.
And the "downfalls" were really minor, played up at the executive
level but only a minor annoyance at the customer level. The app
vendors would often support both camps.
> Yes, I read what you posted above (95% of the API is same, etc) but
> why do I here supposed Unix experts lamenting the fragmentation
> that prevented their rising to majority?
I hear that lamentation from the "we can defeat Windows" faction. You
don't hear it from the "let's get a better UNIX because I like it"
faction.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
