Linux-Advocacy Digest #155, Volume #30 Fri, 10 Nov 00 05:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions: ("Javaduke")
Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions: ("Javaduke")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy? (Steve Mading)
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup ("David Brown")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy? (Donn Miller)
Re: Disapointed in the election ("Javaduke")
Re: What does KDE do after all (Donn Miller)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions:
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:04:37 GMT
"Raul Sainz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:AutO5.35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 1. Linux is an OS: Linux is not the total operating system. Linux,
> strictly
> > speaking is only the kernel, however, when refering to the full
> > distribution, it is refered to as GNU/Linux
>
> With the kernel itself it is difficult to do anything, isn't it ? I
would
> even
> include KDE or GNOME inside the Linux definition (although I know it is
> wrong) to have a OS to be able to compete at the desktop.
I did emphaise "technically", however, like you I consider Linux the full 9
yards, kernel, gooey and extra packages.
> > 2. Linux is unstable: Linux (see q1) is not unstable, however, the
> > distribution (see q1) may be, technophiles generally stick to Debian
> because
> > of it's strict policy of defining what applications can be included with
> the
> > distribution. Alot of crashes that do happen are not always due to
> software
> > bugs, many times they can be caused by faulty hardware, however, Linux
is
> > more fault tolerant than Windows when running it on a desktop.
>
> I do not believe Microsoft says it is unstable, anyway I agree than
Linux
> is very stable, not bullet proof, but almost.
Although Microsoft does not simply jump out and say "The Windows 9x is crap
and unstable" they do give the subtle hints such as using the NT kernel in
the next release.
>
> > 3. Linux is hard: I did
> > teach my self the basics by reading books, so the explaination of "Linux
> us
> > too hard" doesn't cut the mustard.
>
> Not every single computer user should have time to read about setting
up
> an OS to operate it. I know it is a myth, mut it would be desirable,
> wouldn't it ?
> The fact that you or I could learn it does not mine either that we are
more
> intelligent than anyone, just that we do like it more and perhaps we do
have
> more free time :-)
To the "Linux is too hard community": Instead of watching the idiot box (aka
Television) that time could be easily spent reading a book.
>
> > I now use a Ultra Sparc 5 w/ 128MB ram
> > and Solaris 8, a step up from Linux, and even though some Linux purists
> see
> > the battle ground as Linux vs. the rest, I have talked to SUN NZ and
they
> > encourage low end users to use Linux as it provides the low cost
stepping
> > stone to allow a user to gain experience using a UNIX like OS then move
> onto
> > a more commercial one like Solaris.
>
> Why should we move to Solaris ? The real power of Linux is the freedom,
> Solaris is selling more now just because of the Linux success. Do you know
> the first thing I do when installing Solaris ? Installing a lot of free
> packages so
> why shouldn't I stay with the free OS too ? I like the company using
Solaris
> and paying them such a lot of money, because I just have to call Sun and
> they
> give an excellent support, but the OS itself ... well, I like Linux
better.
> Hell with
> Solaris 7 the first thing I do is installing bash :-)
Professionally co-ordinated distribution, that is one of the reasons I
prefer Solaris over Linux on the Sparc Platform.
> > 4. Windows is user friendly: If Windows was user friendly the first
thing
> > that Windows would be able to do is recover correctly either after a
crash
> > or installation of a bad/corrupted driver
>
> User friendly does not mean stable or powerful. Anyway using ext2 and
> switching off the power as many times as FAT32 lets you to do would
> probably corrupt ext2fs too.
Ok, I admit the stupid statement I made, however, having a decent filesystem
would solve many hartaches caused by corrupt file systems (My config: /boot
= ext2 / = reiserfs).
>
> > if the NT kernel is the future of
> > OS's then god help us as I have faced on many occasions Windows failing
to
> > load concluding with a blue screen of death, worse still, I had to
> > re-install Windows, all because the driver was a little thingy (I
finally
> > got it loading by keeping the zip disk in the drive whilst NT was
> loading).
>
> It has some good things and some bad things, as all in this life.
>
> > Secondly, Microsoft would ensure that users are not scared to death of
> being
> > hacked to pieces when using high speed internet, you could however, get
a
> > third party tool, however, if an OS is properly designed it would not be
> > necessary for a user with a single computer connected via the internet
to
> go
> > out and buy a decent form of protection.
>
> 100% agree.
>
> > 5. Microsoft Tech Support is Great: Another myth created by the
wintrolls
> > of the world. 1. Had Microsoft actually listened to customers (which
the
> > claim to do) they would not charge for techsupport, shite, ya pay $400
for
> a
> > bloody piece of software, a little support would be nice! 2. I rang up,
> > after two hours of getting switched from department to department I was
> > finally told that they had changed there database format and as a result
I
> > would have to read a 6 page document describing how I can import it into
> > Visual Basic 6 using a special work around.
>
> Ok, I agree ... support means money, as much as a company asks for
> their support as better it is, take a look at Sun Gold one.
Rang up SUN on several occasions, didn't pay a bean (regarding #include
statements that did not work on Sun Workshop C++ 6.0).
>
> > 6. Linux's hardware support is limited: This was true in the past,
> however,
> > now with the pending release of kernel 2.4 the only pieces of hardware
not
> > supported are obscure pieces of hardware that 0.0000000000001% of
computer
> > users have, such as cheap, so-called, SB compliant cards and USB devices
> > nobodies heard of.
>
> The kernel is pending and not as good as it should have been by now,
even
> Linus has admitted it goes slower than he thought. I do not see Linux
> hardware
> support a problem nowadays.
Linux also has a longer, more open beta testing schedule resulting in a very
stable product, but longer development time.
>
> > 7. Microsoft Innovates: This is another misconception, here are two
> > examples, Java, Microsoft broke a licensing deal with Sun Microsystems
> > regarding Java technology. Microsoft's excuse....."We embraced and
> extended
> > Java functionality"...laymens terms....lets really fuck Java
> up.....another
> > example is Internet Explorer..........created propriety extensions of
the
> > HTML language........."We embrased and extended HTML fuctionality to
> provide
> > a better user experience".......in laymens terms....lets really fuck
> > Netscape.......Two examples of a company using its monopoly in the
> > operating-system market to screw competition by screwing open standards.
>
> I agree in the Java affair, but I hate Java so I hope it does not grow
> more. Both Explorer and Netscape are Mosaic based. Pure innovation does
not
> exist since you base your developments in the things you have listened to,
> seen, and the so ... the Linux world itself has a lot of copying and
> improving
> projects on the run, and I do not see the wrong thing on it.
I am not saying Linux is the defender of the faith, however, Microsoft see's
itself as a industry leader in the world of computer software and the major
innovator, which is not totally correct, if look at many of the advances in
terms of hardware and software, alot of them come out of Universities such
as MIT and companies such as IBM and Apple.
Thank you for your constructive reply,
Javaduke
------------------------------
From: "Javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions:
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:13:52 GMT
That is why I never use Redhat on my PC, I use SUSE, a far superior
distribution than what Redhat has on offer. I donot know if it is me but I
have never had any problem with any of my hardware, my first installation:
Pentium 200MMX, 64MB RAM, 8.4 GB HDD, 40x CDROM, SB16, and a S3 Virge
DX.........My second installation (SuSE 7.0 Pro) Pentium 550 Coppermine,
128MB RAM, 10GIG HDD, 48x CDROM, Soundblaster Live! Value and a NVIDIA TNT2
AGP......did not experience one problem with either computer, so I not sure
whether it is you or the distro, but I have never had any problems.
Thank you for you constructive reply,
javaduke
"Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ueulu$hqi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8udf82$3ps$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here are some Linux vs. Windows misconceptions:
> >
> >
> > 5. Microsoft Tech Support is Great: Another myth created by the
wintrolls
> > of the world. 1. Had Microsoft actually listened to customers (which
the
> > claim to do) they would not charge for techsupport, shite, ya pay $400
for
> a
> > bloody piece of software, a little support would be nice! 2. I rang up,
> > after two hours of getting switched from department to department I was
> > finally told that they had changed there database format and as a result
I
> > would have to read a 6 page document describing how I can import it into
> > Visual Basic 6 using a special work around.
> >
>
> I bought RedHat because it came with "Support". I called because it froze
> up when I tried to install it on my laptop; the first thing they tell me
is
> "We don't support Laptops." So, I did a desktop installation and I was
> having problems with installing SSH (because i was a newbie, not a moron).
> I call and they say, "We don't support that...". So, I look on the web
and
> find that you need many different packages and then you cannot just type
> "y", you need to type "yes".
>
> Finally, I find a tech support person who is compassionate and they say
> (unofficially) that I can kickstart my laptop and configure a framebuffer
> using the framebuffer how-to (snicker) except that if I use the wrong
> settings, I can fry my screen. Good luck. So, I spend many hours
screwing
> around and then release 7 comes out and everything goes fine except I
cannot
> get the screen to work and tech support won't do anything.
>
> So, I try Mandrake 7.2 recently, which goes very well! Find a
configuration
> on the Linux Laptop page that came out about the same time as Mandrake 7.2
> and now my laptop runs.
>
> On my desktop, I cannot get the kernel to compile - I get an Error 2
message
> no matter what. So sound won't be compiled in and I can't get anything to
> work (like Gnome recording stuff). What a waste of time.
>
> What did I pay for then? I never had problems with Windows on either
> system. I don't have the time to mess around. Linux seems to be like
> windows in this way - "All talk." I think it is excellent for a web
server,
> for I have not had any problems (except the linux configuration under
RedHat
> 6.2 that was a known bug) but definately not as a desktop OS for people
who
> want a computer that works for them, not a best friend.
>
> I am an american, so i want ease of use. I have children that are growing
> up and my son always asks me, when I am ttrying to get the computer
running,
> "Dada, did you broked it again? The computer? I wanna play with
yooooo..."
> After many, MANY hours of playing with Linux , after I bought RedHat
box-set
> with "Support", spent many hours combing the web for info, read much of my
> Osbourne "The Complete Reference: Red Hat Linux" (which is a great book
for
> new guys), and got everything running and usable, I have concluded this:
>
> After all was said and done, it wasn't worth it. If you are a new guy or
> just want a computer to use for simple stuff (like word processing, web
> browsing, playing a few games, that sort of thing) Don't mess with Linux.
> It just isn't ready yet.
> Additionally, Don't mess with Linux on a laptop unless you have a LOT of
> free time to waste. It just isn't ready yet.
>
>
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy?
Date: 10 Nov 2000 08:13:56 GMT
:> And why don't you loose the long signature file? It is annoying.
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: ....Especially to the malevolent in-duh-viduals named therein.
Too bad they are people nobody in *this* group has heard of, and
therefore your sig is uselessly verbose.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:26:48 +0100
Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>
>
>MS' clusters have set world records in Sun and IBM's own playgrounds
>(tpc.org for example), cost fractions of what the Sun and IBM solutions
>do and perform factors faster and cost less in the long run because they're
>easier to set up and maintain.
>
I heard that MS clusters with SQL Server were very fast at tpc benchmarks,
and virtually nothing else - and of course you are not allowed to publish
any other benchmarks or tests using MS software. Opinions I have heard (I
don't have data to back this up - I'd value any constructive views from
those who know more) suggest that the tcp benchmarks are not very
informative about typical real life database performance.
It would be great if database and OS manufacturers allow publication of
independant results. An MS solution is a fraction of the cost of a Sun or
IBM solution, but a Linux solution can be a fraction of that again. And
until there is free independant testing, no one can really be sure which is
the most cost effective or overall fastest without trying everything
themselves.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy?
Date: 10 Nov 2000 02:28:02 -0600
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> And why don't you loose the long signature file? It is annoying.
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : ....Especially to the malevolent in-duh-viduals named therein.
> Too bad they are people nobody in *this* group has heard of, and
> therefore your sig is uselessly verbose.
Hey, guess what: Aaron Kulkis graduated from Purdue! Isn't that impressive?
I graduated from Penn State, and you're at Wisconsin! Every person with a
college degree in this thread went to a university in the Big Ten conference.
LOL!
- Donn
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:32:07 GMT
In New Zealand we have MMP. Under MMP you have two votes, a party vote and
a local MP vote. The local MP is the one that represents your community in
the house of commons, the party vote simply gets the party into parliament,
however, the party must get at least 5% of the vote to get into parliament
(the percentage of vote = the number of seats in parliament, 120 seats in
parliament, 5% would result in 6 seats), thus, (In NZ we have Greens,
Labour, Alliance, National, ACT, NZ First and UNITED) you can vote for a MP
from the Labour party, however, you may agree with the policies of the
Greens, thus small parties are represented in parliament. It is very
similar to the system used in Germany. It would be good if the American
house of commons was elected that way (MMP) so that smaller parties would be
able to have a say in the running of the country rather than being dominated
by two parties, and the president was elected via popular vote as it would
1. Give Nadar a decent chance, 2. The most popular would actually would
become head of state.
javaduke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I vote for the candidate I believe in, Nader. In four years Nader is
> going to be a major player, especially after Bush or Gore screws this
> entire country into the ground.
>
> claire
>
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 01:29:38 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> I voted for Nader.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately the idiots in my home state voted Hillary "The Witch"
> >> Clinton in as US Senator.
> >>
> >> Sad :(
> >>
> >> claire
> >>
> >I'm fromthe UK, so I obviously could not vote in your elections. While
> >I can see why you voted for Nader, don't you see that you have only
> >acted to help the simpleton Bush?
>
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: 10 Nov 2000 02:44:31 -0600
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean by 'only run under KDE'?
Probably one that is linked against kdelibs. Konqueror is one such beast.
But, as the KDE FAQ points out, you can still run KDE apps by doing something
like:
kdeinit; konqueror
in WindowMaker, for example. Works just fine! Running KDE is not required.
- Donn
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:53:33 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >B> I think you are mistaking me for some sort of winadvocate Aaron.
> >
> > I'm sorry, Ayende, but if you come to alt.destroy.microsoft (even
> > through cross-posting, I'm afraid) and start talking about how "W2K
> > works for me," you *are* a Winvocate. As I've said before, you seem to
> > be a pretty reasonable person, and I don't want to insult you, but if it
> > walks like a duck...
>
> At the very least, noone can deny Ayende is a Win2kvocate. He has stated
> many times his distaste for the 95 line... (is there anyone who actually
> LIKES this OS? Seriously?)
I don't know.
I don't really mind being a Win2K Advocate, it's being thought of as
Aaron-like sort of advocate that bothers me.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:12:32 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> You are supposedly providing evidence of a free market in Windows
> software. Until Microsoft's illegal activity is mitigated, I see no
> real reason to believe that there is a free market in Windows software,
> whether that is replacement, modification, or extension of
> functionality, or "skins", as you naively put it. The fact of the
> matter is that trying to replace or extensively modify the Windows
> desktop is a self-defeating proposition, in terms of the majority of
> users. It simply isn't worth the trouble, given the penchant that
> Microsofties have for blaming all of Windows' problems on third parties,
> as a convenience to the monopoly.
You mean that they changed the settings and now can't get used to how this
look like?
> If you are willing to say that any problems I might have using
> WindowBlinds may be *Microsoft's* fault, then it might be conceivable to
> suggest that WindowBlinds be used.
I don't think I'd problems with window blinds, 1.x leaked memory like hell,
(tested it on win98, I think) , this version seem much more stable.
So, it seems to me that I don't have anybody to blame for windowblinds
problems, because there aren't any.
> But considering that monopolies
> result in crap software, there is simply too much risk, and not anywhere
> near enough benefit, in bothering with any such stuff. Market reality
> supports this position; you can hardly expect this small handful of
> moderately functional desktop software which is putatively available to
> compare to the large number of complete desktops, GUIs, and window
> managers available on alternative systems. Windows is used on many many
> many more systems, yet the market demand for modified desktops seems
> rather anemic, at best.
Maybe because *gasp* people don't want to customize their computers?
Linux model is "change everything that you like."
A lot of people *don't want to do this*.
LiteStep is open sourced, free of course, quite good, I believe. Why people
don't use it?
Probably because most people don't want a different desktop, they want one
that they already know and are familiar (to some extent, what other people
call familiar with I would barely call passing knowledge) with.
> Now, one could suppose that this is because actually trying to use a
> modified desktop on Windows is not feasible.
Or simply not fun for most users?
> Or, one could assume that
> it must be because Windows is just so damn good that not very many
> people are interested in using a modified desktop.
This isn't my position, I know that there are probably better ways to do it.
My arguement isn't about the quality of windows' interface, it's about the
users' desire to change it.
I've been pointed to flaws in my car analogy, that while all cars has brakes
& gas pedals in the same place, other things are different, I think you need
to ponder about this.
What is more easy to drive? You own car, or some car that is better than
your car, but would take some learning to get used to?
When you are provided with a new interface, even superior interface, you
need to learn about it. (BTW, this is one of the reasons that I think that
linux has a little way to go before it could be used by the average person.)
Most people *don't want to*.
> I do respect your
> opinion, Ayende, but it seems that the latter is more probably your
> position. The situation reminds me somewhat of a common joke in the
> electronics shops I used to work in in the Navy, where we would amuse
> ourselves by saying that light-bulbs work by sucking the darkness out of
> the air. Once the bulb was filled to capacity, it had to be replaced.
> A scenario that might not seem entirely counter-intuitive, but is
> nonetheless entirely incorrect.
Funny joke.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:22:38 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> >As a bonus, it makes this action the default for non-associated
files...
> >> >which means double clicking on ANY unregistered file type will open it
in
> >> >notepad instead of bringing up that damned 'which application' box.
> >>
> >> And perhaps that's not at all what I wanted to do? This isn't a bonus,
> >> BTW: it is the only thing your technique does. Unfortunately, it
> >> doesn't do what I am describing at all.
> >
> >You want to add Notepad option for all file types, right?
>
> No, I wanted to be able to open any file with Notepad, at my option.
Okay, here is how you do it.
Start>Run> "Regedit"
Go to:
"HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\"
if there is a sub key call "shell", go to it, otherwise, create it.
In "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell", delete any previous attempt to do the
notepad.
Then create a subkey to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\" called "notepad"
create a subkey to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\notepad" called "command"
Go to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\notepad\command\" and double click the
default value. (called "(Default)" )
Enter "C:\Windows\Notepad.exe %1" at the edit string box that would appear.
That should bring notepad as alternative for all files on the computer,
(right click, and it would appear)
If you don't want it this as a default action for unknown file types, go to:
"HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Unknown\shell" and change the default value there
"(Default)" to "openas"
This should do it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:36:14 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ugbfg$bc5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Chad Myers wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >MS' clusters have set world records in Sun and IBM's own playgrounds
> >(tpc.org for example), cost fractions of what the Sun and IBM solutions
> >do and perform factors faster and cost less in the long run because
they're
> >easier to set up and maintain.
> >
>
>
> I heard that MS clusters with SQL Server were very fast at tpc benchmarks,
> and virtually nothing else - and of course you are not allowed to publish
> any other benchmarks or tests using MS software.
You aren't allow to publish benchmarks of SQL Server 7 + without prior
written permission only, because of the ease that those benchmarks can be
affected.
MS copies Oracle in this manner, and several other DB makers.
I'm not aware of any other product of MS that have this limitation.
> Opinions I have heard (I
> don't have data to back this up - I'd value any constructive views from
> those who know more) suggest that the tcp benchmarks are not very
> informative about typical real life database performance.
Oh, you mean Oracle's 10 million dollar prize for the one that can come up
with a system that can use MS' way in real world?
The prize that you've to sign an NDA in order to get?
> It would be great if database and OS manufacturers allow publication of
> independant results. An MS solution is a fraction of the cost of a Sun or
> IBM solution, but a Linux solution can be a fraction of that again. And
> until there is free independant testing, no one can really be sure which
is
> the most cost effective or overall fastest without trying everything
> themselves.
I've two identical system, but on one of them the HD is 10% slower, (same
company, though).
What would be the results? How likely it is that the way I skewed the
results would be discovered? Not very much.
This is the reason most DB makers have this in their license.
Linux never participated in those tests, IBM can certainly make a good
system to do it, I have no idea why they didn't.
One possible reason for this is that it would prevent them from selling
extremly high end, highly priced, computers.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:37:43 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:osJO5.16032$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uf9j0$je2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > And Win2K can cluster just as well as Solaris, and be remotedly
> > > administered
> > > > almost as well.
> > >
> > > Note that you pay several thousand extra for the Advanced Server
version
> > > on every box for this capability, plus some exotic hardware if you
> > > want them to see the same disks. Don't give the impression that
> > > normal Win2k has cluster capabilities.
> >
> > How much is this in regard to the cost of sun's big servers?
> >
>
> That obviously depends on how many little boxes and spares you
> have to cluster to come out even.
Assume similar capabilities, I'm not familiar with Sun's products, so I
can't really say, can someone else post something about this?
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:39:08 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I wouldn't bet "my" job on anything with the word Linux in the
> description.
>
Obviously.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
