Linux-Advocacy Digest #584, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A wierd bit in linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (David M. Butler)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (2:1)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux Sucks (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (2:1)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (David M. Butler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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 22:51:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:33:01 GMT
<xdvE5.28055$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > It may not be considered stable, but then win98, by the same standards
>> > isn't
>>
>> 2.4.0-test9 has been much more stable for me than Windows ME (and Windows NT
>> 4.0/sp6 at work). I've never had to reboot my machine running 2.4.0-test9,
>but I
>> have had to restart both the WinME and Windows NT machines more times than I
>can
>> count on one hand last week.
>
>You're comparing a relatively new (although based on archaic technology)
>kernel
Hmmm...how archaic are "loadable modules"? They've been around
since around 2.0. Maybe even earlier.
What is archaic about Linux's kernel? Hell, what's DIFFERENT about
Linux's kernel and NT's kernel? I'm not sure if there is a difference
at a high level -- both have to schedule, allocate memory, track
resources, manage pipes (and pipe clusters, in the case of NT),
sockets, load drivers, manage the computer's identity (MAC and IP
addresses), and ultimately interact with the user in a useful fashion.
In NT, a lot of this is farmed out to DLL's, if I'm not mistaken.
Linux also can farm out certain characteristics, mostly drivers,
to loadable modules.
The middleware might be different, though -- NT doesn't have 'mv', but
it does have 'iexplore.exe', for example. 'mv' is far more limited
and specific -- stupid, in other words -- but that also means
less testing.
>built in 2000 to an OS built in 1996 and a psuedo-32-bit OS
>with a poor version of PME (yes, I don't think Win9x is
>anything other than a consumer OS for gaming and small home tasks)?
>
>What about Windows 2000? Afraid to compare it because you know Linux doesn't
>hold a candle to it?
Win2K is probably the best Windows OS out there. That said, I'm not
sure I trust it any more than NT4, although I'd trust it more than
Win95 or Win98.
>Let's try to compare apples to apples, please. NT 4.0 is better than Linux
>2.0 or 1.2, but that's not saying much.
NT4 is also better than Linux 2.2 or Linux 2.4, by some measures.
Functionality, mostly -- Linux doesn't have builtin MPEG readers
or an all-encompassing GUI, for example. (One can of course ask
whether these are improvements or detractments, of course.)
NT4 also has the ability to interface with NT networks (like, duh).
Linux needs additional software -- SAMBA -- in order to even try.
(Again, however, it's not clear this is an improvement or not.)
>
>-Chad
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:53:19 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > love the reply, I have used Windows 3.1/98/NT 4/2000, until I obtained a
> copy of
> > UNIX (and then later, Linux) I naively, like you, believed Windows NT was
> the "bees
> > knees". Yes and I do know what a PCI card is, the card I removed was a
> Soft-modem
> > from an Intel BX motherboard. I have also installed a ISA card as well
> whilst the
> > machine is on, and no adverse effects. However, I did lie a bit, I was
> using
> > Solaris 8. Windows does have its uses, however, not as a server. If you
> look at
> > the various technologies included with Windows NT/2000, many of these have
> been
> > borrowed from UNIX and other OS's, here are some examples is Terminal
> Server, a
> > quick rehash of the of X-Server and X-Dumb-Client setup used back in the
> 1980's
> > (surprised Microsoft went for the centralised processing model considering
> they were
> > the first to jump up and say Sun Microsystems idea of the Sun Ray as a
> stupid idea,
> > trying to resurrect time sharing and centralised processing of the 1960s),
> HTFS, a
> > close replication of HPFS used by OS/2 Warp, TCP/IP how long has the UNIX
> world had
> > this protocol in service for? a long time.
> >
>
> How strange. You say that W2K has it's uses but not as a server - then you
> go on to list the server qualities that W2K has that, according to you, it
> borrowed from Unix - which we all know is definately a server OS. I would
> say that definately makes W2K server material. Thanks for proving that.
Fuck off, liar.
>
> > Centralised processing does lower TCO below the typical fat client setup.
> The most
> > commonly used example would be at Amazon where there telephone operators
> use Sun Ray
> > Network Appliances. Unfortunately they never released the actual figure
> in terms of
> > cost savings, however, they did state it was substantial
>
> Ahhh "they" - such a reliable source for specific facts...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A wierd bit in linux
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:54:49 -0400
2:1 wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > 2:1 wrote:
> > >
> > > here's a wired one for you all:
> > >
> > > My linux box is configured to put up a splash screen on startup, using a
> > > SVGALib program. Usually, it runs OK, but occasionally, it says its not
> > > the owner of the current console and can't find a free one. Needless to
> > > say, it always runs as root.
> >
> > You have a race condition of some sort.
> > Write a script to check the ownership of the console, and when it's
> > appropriate, then run your splash-screeen displayer.
>
> The program is running as root, so it should always be able to get the
> console if it wishes. I've also checked the rc script, and I can't see
> anything else that would play silly buggers with the console at that
> time.
Put the following line near the top of the script:
sleep 10
This will force a 10 second delay, and allow the race-condition to subside.
>
> -Ed
>
> >
> > >
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > -Ed
>
> --
> Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
> binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
> first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
> commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:02:22 -0400
Todd wrote:
> Not unless Tim is a hard-core Christian. Those idiots actually believe
> the earth *was* created only 10,000 years ago.
Not to start a religion war or anything, but you know what I've always
wondered? Why is it so hard to believe that a book (the bible), that even
says within that it was written by MAN, not GOD, would contain metaphors?
Considering it also says something to the effect of a thousand years being
like a second to God (or a million, or something). Would not then 7 days
be a metaphor for 7 periods of time? Eh?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 18:58:02 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > When you pulled that out of your ass, were you careful to lick
> > it clean before spewing forth onto USENET?
>
> you are disgusting...
You're the one posting your slimy shit to USENET.
I'm merely commenting upon YOUR disgusting habits.
>
> >
> >
> > > 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]"
> >
> > I guess the people who did all of the digital renderings for "Titanic"
> > were just reading E-mail on Linux.
>
> Actually, they use Outlook for that...
>
> >
> > And why were they using Linux? Because fucking NT was ***FAILING****
> > and NT was causing them to fall behind schedule.
>
> Oh really? Care to document that claim?
>
> >
> > Converting over 75% of the rendering farm allowed them to catch up
> > and meet the production deadline.
>
> Can you document where they WERE using NT and converted to Linux?
>
> >
> > Oh, by the way ORACLE has been ported to LINUX, but not NT.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> oh, by the way, Oracle has been running *natively* on NT way way way before
> that lame linux *port*:
>
> Windows NT Platform
> Oracle8i Enterprise Edition Release 2 (8.1.6)
> Oracle8i Standard Edition Release 2 (8.1.6)
> Oracle Internet File System 1.0
> Oracle8i Personal Edition V8.1.6 (Win98)
> Oracle WebDB V2.2
> Oracle8i Lite V4.0.0.2
> Oracle Application Server V4.0.8.2
>
> Always has always will (wonder how long linux support will linger...?) In
> fact, the latest versions are out for NT before Linux and Oracle performance
> on W2K smokes that on Linux according to Oracle themselves. When Oracles
> bids their DB to some of our clients, you bet they are selling their NT,
> Solaris or AIX solutions (sometimes HP-UX), not linux!
>
> Load brain before firing off mouth - remember that...
>
> [Image]
>
> [Image]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:51:03 +0100
You have clearly demonstrated your complete lack of clue.
Linux started as a 32 bit OS. Read the history.
Linux contains none of the origional UNIX code, though the structure
closely resembles that of UNIX.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: 10 Oct 2000 22:51:07 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8rlpvj$lnc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> Certainly, given a high enough network load, ANY variety of
:> webserver, be it Apache/linux or IIS/NT, or whatever, will have
:> to split out to several servers. The point is, if IIS is set up
:> this way more often than apache, and *isn't* handling more traffic,
:> then IIS is handling less traffic per server. So your point
:> originally, about multiple servers hiding behind one hostname, cannot
:> possibly make IIS look better.
: No, my original point was that there are no hard numbers which suggest that
: Apache is used in more servers. As I said, it may be, but I see no numbers
: to validate this assertion.
This is true. I conceed this point. But only on the condition that
you stop trying to claim that using the fortune 500 list amounts to
a good test either. The assumption that just because a company is in
the fortune 500 that this must mean their website has to work harder
is totally false and baseless. Most of the fortune 500 consists of
companies for which web-based commerce is purely secondary to their
business (this is changing, but slowly). GM will still sell cars if
thier website is down. Phillip Morris will still sell tobacco, food,
(and everything else under the sun) if their website goes down.
:> You're right that the netcraft
:> survey is sloppy, but you are wrong in assuming that correcting
:> the slop in the case of hiding servers behind one hostname would
:> make IIS look better, for if it increases the IIS number of sites
: No, I'm talking more about multiple hostnames on one server, not necessarily
: the other way around (though that's also an issue). 100 hosts on the same
: machine are counted by most apache advocates as 100 apache installations,
: and that's just not necessarily the case.
Oh, c'mon! Do you really think this is all that common? Sure, it's
possible, but common enough to throw off the results?
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: 10 Oct 2000 22:55:58 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: You guys are all so out of your minds it's incredible. Whatever the
: semantics involved (ie:Linux is the kernel), it is a fact that Linux
: is trying to compete with Windows for the desktop simply by virtue of
: the number of Windows program look a likes as well as kde and Gnome.
Why assume that anything with a titlebar and a rectangle is an imitation
of Windows? That's really ignorant. By that logic, Windows is just
an imitation of a Mac. (And incedentally, the themes in kde and
gnome allow it to look like just about anything - Windows, Mac,
Nextstep, etc. To say that it is a Windows look-alike in light of
this is pure ignorance.)
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:54:50 +0100
> Actually, it's not. Win2K is way more stable than Linux. FUDsters like
> to bash NT for stability and then claim that Linux is stable, which in
> and of itself is a joke.
Chad, you're talking horseshit again. Win2K hasn't been around long
enough to proove if it is more stable than Linux. The longest Linux
uptimes are longer than the total life of Win2K.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 06:43:16 -0400
Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It was the Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:35:19 GMT...
>> ...and STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:46:28 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
>> > Warkus) wrote:
>> >
>> > >> > On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 04:17:07 GMT, "Chad Myers"
>> > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> > Well put and all too often true. These people should be quartered and
>> > >> > then shot. The children placed in homes with caring responsible
>> > >> > guardians....
>> > >
>> > >No, thanks. This reminds me altogether too much of our past.
>> > >
>> > >Of course you don't have no steenking past, Mr American Guy. I know.
>> >
>> > No we didn't save europe from hitler or anything....
>>
>> It would be interesting to see what would have happened in WW2 without
>> the U.S.
>>
>> Do you honestly think Hitler would have won? Come on!
>What do you define as winning? I doubt an invasion of the U.S. would've
>worked -- remember, we hadn't invaded Europe, so we still had all our men at
>home -- but Europe would've been taken and fully cemented.
>The Brits would or wouldn't have pulled a D-Day, regardless it would've been
>far weaker than the joint (e.g. American with a few Brits, Aussies and
>Canadians) assault. Hitler would've had more troops to devote to the Soviet
>campaign. Hitler proved himself to make many military blunders (namely the
>Soviet attack and multi-front campaigns) so he would've squandered it
>eventually but not after he would've continued the slaughter of jews,
>christians and just about everyone else.
>Would we (the good people) have won after that anyhow?
>Needless to say, the Nazi's would've left a more permanent mark on Paris and
>London.
>The Ruskies probably would've eventually won (?) but the I don't believe the
>Brits, Aussies, and Candians (let alone the French... laf) would've been able
>to stop him alone.
Were you born an asshole or is it something that you acquired? Try reading
some history before you go around the world proving you are the village idiot!
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[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 19:15:33 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
> Unlike the hundred or so kernel patches since Linux' release eh?
Which are really completely different than a bug fix. If you count kernel
patches, you're counting any new feature or specialized option that someone
released for the Linux kernel. When MS releases a patch, it's usually to
fix a bug, not to add features (those cost money). So, yes, it's very much
unlike the hundred or so kernel patches...
Besides that, Linux is available in development versions, and a patch to
that can hardly be considered an official release patch... I'm running
kernel 2.2.14 which indicated that it's kernel 2.2, and it's been updated
(ie patched, if you prefer) 14 times, not a hundred or so.
Oh well.
D. Butler
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
