Linux-Advocacy Digest #622, Volume #29 Thu, 12 Oct 00 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: David T. Johnson lies again (Marty)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again (Marty)
Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: David T. Johnson lies again (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 12 Oct 2000 19:14:07 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s2p1q$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8s1qff$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8s01jh$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:10:54 GMT, Chad Myers
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:8ru4kt$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> >> There are alot of companies which make enormous machines
that
> > are
> >> >> > fully
> >> >> >> >> >> capable of blowing everything that compaq makes completely
> > away.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > But they haven't?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You're right chad. As right as dresden. Theres no way a 4096
> >> >> > processor
> >> >> >> >> mainframe could ever beat a compaq machine.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No, really.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Spare me the sarcasm. Please answer the question. Why hasn't IBM
> >> >> >> >enterered their top-o'-the-line into the TPC race and
annihilated
> > the
> >> >> >> >competition? What reason would they have not to?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Perhaps their marketing department is a bit more sophisticated
> >> >> >> than that.
> >> >>
> >> >> > I don't consider that more sophisticated, I think it's stupid. If
it
> >> > WERE
> >> >> > such a thing that was "below" IBM - they wouldn't have entered at
all
> >> >> > (instead of several 100 times) and certainly wouldn't have spent
> >> > $millions
> >> >> > to achieve 1st place (now second).
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Perhaps they know that this consumer grade sort of
> >> >> >> stinginess is less prevalent amongst customers willing to spend
> >> >> >> 6 or 7 figures on computing solutions.
> >> >>
> >> >> > I think that is very unlikely. If someone can spend a low 8
figures
> > and
> >> >> > smoke the pants off someone in the higher 8 figures - there is a
> >> > difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Perhaps they don't find any reason to worry about being "outdone"
> >> >> >> by massively clustered solutions.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Perhaps they should be worried if bottom lines mean anything to
> > anyone
> >> > at
> >> >> > IBM sales..
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps they know that they are the only competitors in the market
in
> >> > which
> >> >> the machines in question exist.
> >> >>
> >> >> Idiot.
> >>
> >> > oh yeah, THAT makes sense. "We are SO good that we don't even have to
> > prove
> >> > it." I'm sure that's the kind of smart marketing that assumes that
> > everyone
> >> > else is "smart" enough to ignore published results and just
*magically*
> > ...
> >> > know... that an IBM solution is faster/better than anything else
> > because..
> >> > well... just because.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry dresden, is there a direct competitor with the ASCII series?
> >>
> >> Please let me know who they are.
>
> > Oh, I see - so you create a machine which has no competition - therefore
it
> > must of course be the very best in it's class. Nothing can touch it in
it's
> > class. It's the ultimate in it's class. Great! except... what if
something
> > in a different class performs better on the same task? i.e., "The best
> > compact car in it's class" vs "The 3rd best sports car in it's class" -
now,
> > which of these do you think is going to win on the skip pad or
acceleration
> > or in top speed?
>
> I'm sorry dresden, did you have an example of something in another class
that
> out performs an ASCII white?
Do I need to? Does it matter? Is it even remotely relavent? Should I perhaps
just mention the name of a bigger more power computer and that will help
me... how again? Do you even know the point you are trying to make (if you
are at all)?
>
> > or are you trying to claim that these are the best computers in the
world.
> > bar none. Is that your claim?
>
> They are better than anything to which you have access (or have ever heard
of
> most likely).
>
True or not - so??
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 12 Oct 2000 19:15:12 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8s1qbu$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8s01oc$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> So, again: where is Compaq's machine that can do 160TPM?
> > > >>
> > > >> > So, again: who cares?
> > > >>
> > > >> Apparantly you only care about performance up to and including the
very
> > > > top
> > > >> of compaq's product line.
> > >
> > > > No - I just don't care for the comparison. I don't see the value
anymore
> > of
> > > > a large, expensive, monolithic uni-server solution any more in
todays
> > > > models.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> > Do we say: "Ah, Google with Linux is so pathetic, they
> > > >> > have to use clusters! ahahhaha." then add: "Show me the single
linux
> > box
> > > >> > that can run Google"?
> > > >>
> > > >> An IBM S/390 64x64. Theyve even got cool light up blue stripes
down
> > the
> > > > side.
> > >
> > > > Again... if the choice is SOOoooOooOoo obvious - Google must be
pathetic
> > > > idiots not to take the simple route then eh? I'm sure it's not
easier to
> > > > manage thousands of linux boxes intead of one pretty shiny IBM?
> > >
> > > Its alot harder actually, but they had already bought into that
> > architecture
> > > in an extreme way; there would have been an enormous non-hardware
related
> > > cost to switch.
> >
> > Gee, you mean like moving from BSD and Solaris to W2K ala Hotmail -
now...
>
> More like moving from BSD to Solaris to W2k (aborted) back to Solaris
>
>
>
> ala HOTMAIL
patethic idiot... no matter how many times you people spue that crap no one
believes it yet you continue to spue it like some broken record... of course
now it's Solaris to W2K and back, at least you updated it from NT4... hehehe
even your DUE doesn't coordinate anymore
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 12 Oct 2000 19:17:10 -0500
"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:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:8rfm9h$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:8rd6gr$26rc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > I'm sorry dude, but sometimes you hear something so silly
you
> > > > can't
> > > > > > stop
> > > > > > > >> > from laughing...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > I'm sure he'll post the tux results ... it's all they've
> > got...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Dont you have something better to do?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yup - it's what I do the rest of the time... right now I'm
> > laughing
> > > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > sun rep who tried to sell some 10000s to one of my
clients...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh I remember you, youre the one that thinks (incorrectly)
that
> > > > microsoft
> > > > > > > can compete in the heavy-server market. We've all been
laughing
> > at
> > > > you
> > > > > > > for some time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One name: "w2k data center"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, now show us one that actually works.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > start here butthead
> > > >
> >
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/studies/default.asp
> > >
> > > Big fucking deal.
> > >
> > > Microsoft's definition of "working" is "doesn't catch fire and roast
the
> > > adjacent equipment when you plug it in"
>
>
> Notice how Drestin Lack-of-facts leaves this undisputed, and IMMEDIATELY
> dives into a hand-waving misdirection routine.
>
Notice how it's unimportant to document the fact that the sun rises every
morning. Somethings are obvious facts. That Data Center is released and
working and nto catching fire and roasting the adjacent equipment when you
plug it in is an obvious fact. Only someone (a retard perhaps?) who could
debate whether or not the sun comes up in the morning would argue such a
fact..
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 12 Oct 2000 19:23:11 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > W2K is running 100% of the web servers at Hotmail but the
> > application
> > > > itself
> > > > > > has not yet been ported. Look for that to change before the year
is
> > out.
> > > > >
> > > > > www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2610894,00.html
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that link just verifies what I already said. Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's a far older message that MS keeps changing the
> > > > > date on and revamping...
> > > > > www.microsoft.com/ntserver/web/news/msnw/Hotmail.asp
> > > >
> > > > Hmm... the date is STILL May 1, 1998 - just like it was when they
first
> > > > posted it on... May 1, 1998. The text is the same as it was then
too. In
> > > > fact, it needs to be updated to reflect the change to W2K.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No - see you missed the whole point. In
> > > May 1998, they were pretending the
> > > migration was near done. It was later
> > > announced that such had not worked and
> > > that HotMail was running Solaris and BSD
> > > with forays into re-attempting usage of
> > > NT (specifically the new W2K). And
> > > that was from announcements 2 years later.
> >
> > No, you are simply wrong. They NEVER pretended anything in May 1998. it
was
> > NEVER announced that it never worked because they never tried in the
first
> > place! You fail to document ANY of your lies.
>
> So, you admit that Microsoft never did Migrate hotmail to MS LoseDows.
That is correct. Microsoft never migrated to whatever "LoseDows" is.
In case you meant Windows, as in Windows 2000, MS has already completed 100%
of the conversion from BSD and Apache for the front end servers to W2K/IIS.
That's done and easily verified. The hotmail application itself continues to
run on a single Slowaris box. Expect this to change soon.
Those are facts. Argue at your own risk.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 12 Oct 2000 19:33:16 -0500
"joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > "joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > yes, i would agree that the reason they are fixing the hotmail
> > application
> > > > is because solaris cannot scale well enough to handle the loads
hotmail
> > > > generates.
> > >
> > > MS uses Solaris.
> > > They do becasue windows was and is a PC class OS from a shrink wrap
> > software
> > > company.
> > >
> >
> > MS itself (microsoft.com) does not use Solaris - hotmail's application
> > server does. Oh, and Solaris is shrink wrap software too putz.
>
> 1) It's common knowledge SUN Solaris never was nor is shrink wrap
software.
Intersting, wonder what all that plastic that shinks to fit the manual/CD
box is? Gee, just like Windows...
>
> 2) microsoft.com is a URL. Don't change the subject when your wrong - it
only
> draws more attention to your misinformation as does name calling.
I didn't change the subject and was specific to that URL. Hotmail was
purchased by microsoft. They didn't write it nor build it. Only a complete
idiot (or raving zealot) would pay millions for a huge, successful, working
application and rip out the application that works and you paid for just to
replace it haphazardly with your own product, especially since it's not on
your own home turf nor even branded with your name. Instead, you do it in
steps, in an orderly fashion. However, Microsoft itself does not use Solaris
for anything they build and/or write.
>
> 3) HotMail is MS - itself.
When you buy something, is it's history instantly your history? think...
> Hotmail and it uses Solaris because it has to use
> Solaris and it sure seems to piss you off.
Of course it has to use solaris, Hotmail is written for a custom version of
Solaris - it has to be rewritten to run under Windows obviously. You have
heard of porting an application when changing platforms I'm sure...
> MS built a their NorCal campus to
> consolidate all their empolyees from WebTV and Hotmail and other
aquisitions in
> Muntainview California. They even have a neat billboard "Hiring Now" on
101
> at junction 85 becasue of high employee turnover.
> http://www.microsoft.com/norcal/svc.htm
Very interesting. Yes, I know of this turnover - they are dumping the unix
deadwood - those that can't learn to upgrade. There are a lot of bsd and
solaris dudes falling off the hotmail wagon that's for sure and it sure
isn't with any parachutes you can be sure (ask their recruiters).
Of course, the fact that the solaris app can't scale up to meet hotmails new
demands and that hotmail's front end is faster now that it's running W2K is
not news either... so... what was your point again? did you have one?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 12 Oct 2000 19:37:19 -0500
"joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > You are the fool and idiot. You cannot prove anything whatsoever. Prove
> > their attempt to migrate at any time. Prove their attempt to migrate and
> > failure at any time. W2K obviously can handle the load because the same
> > number of servers that ran hotmail under BSD are now running a larger
load
> > under W2K (same hardware, better results). And, look for Slowaris to be
> > replaced at hotmail before years end...
> >
> > I can prove that BSD was replaced by W2K successfully at Hotmail - what
can
> > you prove other than your often repeated .sig (and I quote):
>
> Oh Please. You could NOT prove what you claim. If you could you wouldn't
be
> doing it on USENET.
Yes I can and why wouldn't I. Everyone knows that hotmail.com is now running
all their front end web servers on W2K and IIS - check netcraft - go ahead,
hit it 1000 times in a row. you won't find anything but w2k - the proof is
right there for EVERYONE to see.
>
> And What about realiability? MS advocates always pretend Windows is as
> relaible as say an OS like BSD.
what about reliablity? we don't have to pretend it's being proven as we
write. There is all of hotmail.com, not a single interruption of service
(unlike before) whatsoever since it's migration. Now that I'm past the
problems I had with the first generation of NVIDIA beta drivers for W2K I
have never had a crash or reboot to deal with. None. Period. No one using
W2K has to pretend - but unix types who can't or won't change and can't or
won't accept the fact that W2K is not NT3.5 just will never admit the
truth... sigh... it's sad...
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:34:45 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> You repeat your arguments to yourself
Prove it, if you think you can.
> and incorrectly seem to feel that that gives them weight.
What you perceive that I "seem to feel" is irrelevant. Nonetheless, your
statement is quite ironic, given that your posting consisted solely of a
restatement of your arguments with no supporting evidence for your position.
> You have accused me of harassing and denigrating OS/2 developers.
Incorrect. I have accused you of lying, and rightfully so.
> That is completely false (and ridiculous as well for reasons you are not
> yet aware of). Glatt accused me of being on a mission to harass and
> denigrate OS/2 developers. You have supported his false accusation
Incorrect. More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> by publicly posting that: 1) you consider yourself to be an OS/2
> developer
I am not alone in that consideration.
> and 2) My statement denying any harassment and denigration of OS/2
> developers is false.
I have shown your harassment and denigration of myself by providing a
definition of each word and applying it to various quotes of yours which were
addressed to (or should I say "at") me.
ha�rass (hrs, h-rs)
v. tr. ha�rassed, ha�rass�ing, ha�rass�es.
1.To irritate or torment persistently.
2.To wear out; exhaust.
3.To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
den�i�grate (dn-grt)
v. tr. den�i�grat�ed, den�i�grat�ing, den�i�grates.
1.To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
2.To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
DTJ] I have only called you a 'liar' and a 'hypocrite.'
Denigrate: 1
DTJ] perhaps you need to reevaluate your surroundings since you fail to
impress me as being extraordinarily bright, yourself.
Denigrate: 1,2
Harass: 1,3
DTJ] H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
Denigrate: 1
DTJ] I doubt that your typical comments can be "dumbed" down any further.
Denigrate: 1,2
Harass: 1,3
DTJ] As for the substance of your comment, it appears to be as garbled
and confused as Marty's.
Denigrate: 1,2
Harass: 1,3
DTJ] I am starting to feel like I am being flamed by a gaggle of
fifth-graders.
Denigrate: 1,2
DTJ] I was pointing to Marty's mental confusion.
Denigrate: 1,2
Harass: 1,3
DTJ] The entire thrust of your posts over the last week seems to be
personal attacks. I am losing respect for you.
Denigrate: 1,2
...
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:35:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes [to David T. Johnson]:
>
> > Do you utilize the same (to quote Joe Malloy) "mythical and ineffective
> > lawyer" as Tholen?
>
> My lawyer is neither mythical nor ineffective, Marty, despite what Joe
> Malloy wants you to think.
Who is your lawyer and what has he done for you?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~!
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:25:14 GMT
I believe most of the free ISP's can be used with Linux. I currently
have accounts with Freei.net and OneNation.com - both work under Linux.
Do the following:
Set up an account under windows, get user id and password
login and type winipcfg in the RUN box
- This will give you the DNS server numbers
Go to the site www.rasspy.gq.nu and download their software
- This will echo back to you the possibly disguised password.
Plug in the values in your PPP dial up connector (This also works with
Windows DUN)
To get you started the DNS for One Nation is 204.178.185.5
204.178.185.105
the password has an xms as a suffix
Freei.net has anounced chapter11 recently and although it is working
well for the moment it can go down any time.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 12 Oct 2000 19:40:27 -0500
"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:
> > > >
> > > > "Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8rvoft$nc7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <39e2aab3$0$5789$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > <snip> >
> > > > > >W2K is running 100% of the web servers at Hotmail but the
application
> > > > itself
> > > > > >has not yet been ported. Look for that to change before the year
is
> > out.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I berated somebody for making an inference about Hotmail's poor
> > > > > performance lately but now I guess maybe I was wrong. I rarely
deal
> > with
> > > > > Hotmail addresses but of late the few I've dealt with took 3-4
hours
> > to
> > > > > receive mail that I sent. I guess corporate decision making
doesn't
> > take
> > > > > into account that if something ain't broke, don't fix it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not certain I got this right so if I'm wrong forgive me. Are you
> > saying
> > > > that hotmail is slower now that it's on W2K than before? and when
you/I
> > say
> > > > slower here you mean in the time to deliver mail?
> > > >
> > > > If that is so then I think you don't realize that you have further
> > > > reenforced the nickname for Solaris "slowaris" because it's the
Solaris
> > > > portion of Hotmail that handles the actual routing/delivery of
mail -
> > NOT
> > > > the W2K/IIS front end server pool.
> > > >
> > > > yes, i would agree that the reason they are fixing the hotmail
> > application
> > > > is because solaris cannot scale well enough to handle the loads
hotmail
> > > > generates.
> > >
> > > Liar.
> > >
> > > M$ tried to migrate hotmail FROM Solaris to a wannabe M$-OS, and it
> > > failed big time (just like on the previous attempts).
> > >
> > > Solaris can handle the load
> > > LoseNT can't
> > > Lose2K can't
> > >
> > > Hope that helps, liar.
> > >
> >
> > You are the fool and idiot. You cannot prove anything whatsoever.
>
> Personal observation in the workplace is sufficient.
I'll remember that the next time you ask me to prove something.
>
> > Prove their attempt to migrate at any time.
>
> They certainly ballyhood the "upcoming" event in their announcements.
oh?
>
> > Prove their attempt to migrate and failure at any time.
>
> They had to abandon the product becuase it was a fiasco.
Prove it. Prove it. Prove it in any way shape or form. Document ANYTHING
about this pathetic years old claim. Document it for the present, or the
past - prove ANYTHING whatsoever about that crap being even remotely
distantly true. You can spue this crap forever and no one will ever buy
it... silly.
>
>
> > W2K obviously can handle the load because the same
> > number of servers that ran hotmail under BSD are now running a larger
load
> > under W2K (same hardware, better results). And, look for Slowaris to be
> > replaced at hotmail before years end...
>
>
> W2K can handle the load, but Microsoft is NOT migrating the servers
> at Hotmail (an MS property) and it didn't fail because they never
> attempted to migrate Hotmail.
I don't know where this came from but a) MS has already migrated the web
servers at hotmail.com to W2K - that is already done. The hotmail
application is next. And, yes, they never attempted to migrate hotmail
before this (app or httpds)
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 12 Oct 2000 19:47:15 -0500
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Mike Byrns" <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:5azE5.125728$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > <snip well written reply>
> > > >
> > > > > My position exactly!!! Keep it up but realize that to beat the
> > opponent
> > > > you
> > > > > must ARGUE better not only have the best position. Many campaigns
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > > lost by better opponents with lesser debate skills.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your time and reply Mike. I have taken your comments
to
> > heart.
> > >
> > > Thanks Drestin and I hope ther are no hard feelings. You are
obviously
> > just as
> > > much an experienced professional as I am. Maybe moreso. I just want
to
> > make
> > > sure the Dolly's in the crowd get rebutted. PS how much you wanna bet
> > s/he's an
> > > out of work Linux admin?
> > >
> >
> > No hard feelings. I get worked up and come out swinging often. I've been
in
> > the trenches for 20 years now and just can't stand those like "Dolly"
> > either. Lies just burn my botton...
> >
> > Linux admins get paid? Thought it was information for free for
everyone!!
>
> Oh, Drestin... :-) 20 years? What'd ya do before Windows? BTW, nice
> to be on civil ground again.
I worked with IBM's, DECs, Magnuson's, HPs. Got really into it about 89 when
I did my first contract and thought: "Damn! This sure pays well!" :) FYI: I
never used Windows prior to 3.1 and even then it was just playing around. In
fact, I didn't get into Windows 95 much when it first came out, crashed too
much and was slow. All my work was networking offices using either Novell or
LANtastic. I was mostly programming in the early 90s. Finally scored big on
an application I sold to F500 company and opened my own and have been doing
mostly upgrades and conversions since. About 80% of what I do is replace
unix or novell networks with NT networks which is why I guess I'm the way I
am :) MAN, people are SO used to paying huge box for unix boxes and
UNBELIEVABLE support prices for unix personel that the profits are still
juicy in this sector. Trying making money on someone who already has NT and
wants to go to W2K and it's tough - they are already savvy to the fact the
TCO on NT is so low. Funny, I've never seen a NT to Unix migration, not in 7
years.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:45:09 GMT
chrisv wrote:
>
> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Psst... I am an OS/2 developer.
>
> It looks to me like you're doing the harassing....
Take another look at where this thread started. Then examine threads with the
name "Wenham" in the title (or any correspondence between David and Chris
Wenham).
I'm not denying that I am returning the harassment, but I "didn't start the
fire". David feels that he should be able to tell us who the good guys and
bad guys are and what people should and should not say. Unfortunately, he
screwed up and started discussions that fell under his own "should not say"
category, and that's when I stepped in.
He also tends to repeat himself in preference to providing evidence to back up
anything he says (look for his references to "garbled, illogical", etc.), but
that's another issue.
In short, take another look. Take note of who is providing evidence and who
is "snipping" the "irrelevant ranting".
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
