Linux-Advocacy Digest #216, Volume #31 Wed, 3 Jan 01 12:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (chrisv)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (hackerbabe)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (Craig Kelley)
Linux Modems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (*)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:10:22 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Once again, having no case, you do not post *SPECIFICS*!
>
>That's because its a conversation, moron, not an official court case.
You lost the argument, buddy. Badly.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:14:37 GMT
Said JSPL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:38:51 -0500;
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:92vart$i8r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:92t60g$cks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > The only thing I've seen are either an inability to display uptime
>or
>> > > > wildly impossible to believe number such as 13 or so pollings on a
>> > server
>> > > > showing time since last reboot to be "zero". (sauder.com). Or the
>> > assinine
>> > > > assumption that Netcraft is the only entity on earth that seems to
>be
>> > > aware
>> > > > of all these popular sites going down every few days.
>> > >
>> > > www.walmart.com
>> >
>> > I wasn't aware IIs 5.0 had been ported to Linux. Sounds fishy to me :-)
>>
>> It wasn't.
>> The server identify itself as IIS5, btw.
>> But trying to go to http://www.walmart.com/thispagedoesnotexist.gsp
>> The response isn't unlike *anything* that I've seen coming from IIS
>> Not to mention that the file path is totally un-windows one.
>>
>> > They appear to be using a shopping program called cart.gsp and most web
>> > pages use the extension .gsp. Anyone have any info on what that is?
>>
>> GSP stand for GNU Server Pages
>> A Java servlet which storngly resemeble ASP
>>
>> http://www.bitmechanic.com/projects/gsp/
>
>That pretty much answers my question! And proves that netcraft is wrong
>(again).
Exqueeze me? In point of fact, it proves that you don't know what
you're talking about, and that the OS is, as stated by Netcraft, derived
from the network characteristics, not the server strings in the HTTP
response. So walmart configured their web server to identify itself as
IIS5, for some reason*, even though it is obviously a Linux box running
a non-IIS server. (Does apache itself support gsp, or do you need
something else? I've never heard of it, before, but I positively LOVE
the idea, even though I hate gsp; I don't think ASP sucks only because
its monopoly crapware, I think it sucks to begin with. ;-})
*The only reasons I can think of for doing this would be:
a) Someone at Walmart figures it can't hurt to pretend that you're using
monopoly crapware
b) Walmart has a lock-in contract with Microsoft which requires that
they "use" IIS5, but they don't want to because its crapware.
c) Just to blow the minds of people like Ayende and JSPL and Erik.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: 03 Jan 2001 09:17:15 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If there were any truth to it, then they wouldn't have to leverage
> > their desktop presence to coerce NT sales, which was the root of the
> > Netscape trial. If they are so much "smarter, more visionary, more
> > creative, more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious and more
> > successful" then why did (and do) they resort to sneaky back-end deals
> > involving pre-loading and such?
>
> Covering all their bases?
>
> > Basically, why can't I get a Sony Vaio without Windows on it? Why do
> > I have to pay for Word, when I'm not going to use it? Where is WMP
> > for any other platform than Windows? Why are they "helping" vendors
> > release WMP-only media? These actions do not point to a better
> > product, but rather, a sneaky company who wants to "win" at all costs
> > -- even to the point of buying shares in doomed competitors so they
> > can have puppet "competition". This is not how a free market works,
> > and it is not how capitalism works.
>
> That's an entirely different issue. Sony sells only mass market systems and
> only in specific configurations. This reduces their technical support
> costs. *Sony gets a better price on Word if they sell more copies.*
[emphasis added]
That's what I'm complaining about.
> If they would sell 60+% of the PC's with word anyways, it makes
> sense to make it standard on all your systems to reduce your costs
> overall.
It only "makes sense" because it's a false market. Some competitor
cannot bridge the gap, and my dollars are going to perpetuate a
system, even though I don't use the software. I also have several
friends who love Vaios, but run Linux or FreeBSD on them
exclusivly.
> This issue is all about the OEM saving a few bucks, not MS forcing anyone
> into anything.
They are *not* saving a few bucks! Microsoft has structured their
pricing in order to *force* them to use their software in order to
remain competitive. If they can shave a few dollars off the price of
their preloaded wares, then it's a win-win situation for *Microsoft*,
not for *me*.
> > The answer is that Microsoft does *not* have the alleged attributes --
> > they use non-techncial, shady deals to get their products sold. They
> > bribed ISPs with free server software *if* they preloaded IE on their
> > client disks (IEAK, yes I've used it), they bribe OEMs with reduced
> > costs based on sales figures. They use BSA BS to scare OEMs into
> > selling their products for them. They use 3rd parties to write their
> > drivers for them, encouraging "windows-only" solutions.
>
> It's a commodity market. You play by commodity rules. Volume is where it's
> at.
>
> You seem to think that a MS should not be allowed to give volume discounts,
> something that is common in every market known to man.
They should be able to give volume discounts, but it should be the
same discount for the same volume for everyone. Instead they target
each manufacturer and give different deals based on sales of machines;
our local OEM gets a much higher discount for selling hundreds of
machines than Gateway would get for selling the same amount. It's the
"preload or die" manifesto that they "stopped" doing in the early part
of the 90s, only disguised to fool people. You basically get a great
discount if you include Microsoft products (the more the better!) on
all your machines.
"All" can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: 03 Jan 2001 09:19:34 -0700
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:92tuuv$vkf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <92tmli$ojd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
> > > Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
> > >
> > > "There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
> > > Gates]
> >
> > ...or Al Capone, or Manuel Noriega, or John Gotti...
> >
> > > or great companies [like Microsoft]
> >
> > ... or the Mafia, or the Medellin cartel, or the Hell's Angels...
> >
> > > are hated, and it has
> > > nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
> > > because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
> > > more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
> > > successful than everyone else.
> >
> > Bullshit. It's because they fucking broke the law.
>
> Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
Perhaps that is true; but they will always be labled a "monopoly" from
here on out (it is extremely unlikely that the finding of fact will be
changed) -- they better keep their noses *very* clean from here on
out, which is all we want anyway.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:06:57 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> Linux's collection of User interfaces suck.
Why and in what ways do they suck?
> KDE2 goes a long way into
> reducing the amount of "suck" in it,
Because of the additional programs that come with it?
> and Enlightenment goes even further, to
> add "eye-candy",
Do other Linux UIs suck because they aren't as "pretty" as
Enlightenment?
> but the resulting UI's don't go into adding FUNCTIONALITY
> that is substantial to the previous revisions of KDE and Gnome &
> Enlightenment (or sawmill).
Could you clarify your precise definition of "functionality"? Other
people seem to think Linux's GUIs function just fine in
comp.os.linux.advocacy. Maybe you know something that they don't?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:20:29 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:42:16
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:15:50
>> [...]
>> >> >Found another one.
>> >> >www.walmart.com
>> >>
>> >> Another one WHAT, Ayende?
>> >
>> >Check this one in netcraft.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Adam Ruth asked about sites which displayed unbelivable resutls.
>I gave two so far.
>
>Netware + IIS
>Linux + IIS
Adam Ruth asked for sites which displayed inaccurate uptimes, and has
pointedly, specifically, and repeatedly mentioned that 'unbelievable
results' are not at all interesting in this regard.
Perhaps some web designers somewhere have discovered that there are
certain Microsoft software products which do not behave correctly unless
the server identifies itself as "IIS" in the HTTP header strings. I
think this is an ominous possibility, for what I hope would be obvious
reasons.
Netcraft, obviously, is not fooled by this technique, and correctly
identify the OS by network characteristics. Your posting of these
'examples' might possibly at least be related to the discussion, if you
identified whether they have correct uptime for the OS (or the server?).
But I strongly suspect based on the comments made so far that these
Netcraft does not support any uptime reporting on these servers at all.
Is this correct?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:25:28 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:57:30
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >The FL Supreme
>> >Court was an example of liberal gerry-mandering in the process of elections.
>>
>> And what diety-on-high proclaimed this to you? Rush Limbaugh?
>
>It was obvious to anyone that didn't have their head in the sand, like you.
Oh really? Liberal gerry-mandering? I hadn't heard that, and I got
daily updates on the issue because I happen to be traveling at the time,
and I like to watch the Today show and read the paper when I'm
traveling.
>> >Their decisions were purely partisan in nature and had no basis on the
>> >facts.
>>
>> Yes, it always supports your case to insist that Supreme Court judges
>> are "purely partisan" and have "no basis on the facts". Heaven forbid,
>> you should wish to discuss an issue reasonably.
>
>I am. Why do you not debate on merits of the facts, but rather pick
>apart my words.
Because, as little merit as your words might have, your "facts" have
even less.
>Please tell us why the FL SC decisions were with merit,
>even though the US SC vacated them twice?
[...]
>> >In fact, in their first vacation of the FL Supreme Court, the U.S.
>> >Supreme Court asked the FL SC to cite just ONE law on which they based
>> >their decision. A request that the FL SC has yet to comply with.
>>
>> No, Supreme Court decisions do not contain phrases like that.
>
>This is the official filing of the US SC in regards to the first
>hearing on the first FL SC decision.
>http://a388.g.akamai.net/f/388/21/1d/www.cnn.com//LAW/library/
>documents/election.florida/00-836_dec04.pdf
>
>NOTE: URL wrapped for readability, please reassemble on address line
Just an aside; urls aren't for reading, they're for clicking. Next
time, either admit that its wrapped because your newsreader is broken,
or don't bother changing it.
>Read the last couple paragraphs where they actually vacate the decision.
>
>"After reviewing the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, we find
>"that there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for
>the decision." Minnesota v Nationa Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551.555 (1940)."
>
>"Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the FL SC
>saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature's
>authority under Art. II $1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the
>consideration the FL SC accorded to 3 U.S.C. $5. The judgment of the
>SC of Florida is therefore vacated"
>
>Basically, that last paragraph said, "At what point did the the
>legislature give the FL SC the power to write law? And why didn't
>the FL SC pay attention to any of the other laws of the seperation
>of powers?" The FL SC clearly overstepped its bounds without any
>consideration for the Constitution or the US Code. The US SC put
>its foot down.
You confuse your ability to read and repost the text, with your chance
of being able to correctly comprehend it. A more reasoned
interpretation would be, and was, and is, "Since we cannot understand
the legal reasoning the court used to make their decision, we are
vacating their decision." All the rest is just you second-guessing
legal scholars, without merit but with clear intent.
>> In fact, what the US Supreme Court said, and all they said, was that they were
>> unaware of the judicial reasoning which lead to the FL Supreme Court's
>> decision. A request they complied with several days later.
>> Unfortunately, they were days the country could not afford, owing to the
>> "rule of law" you Republicans love to misappropriate.
>
>BS. There was no law governing the FL SC decision, in fact, there were
>laws AGAINST such a decision, which is why the US SC was so eager to take
>the case. The Rule of Law was subverted by the FL SC, and the US SC
>stepped in to fix it.
Take the complex and inferential decisions of two high courts, grind
them through a moron's brain, and you can come up with some surprisingly
erroneous understanding, I'll give you that. The Rule of Law cannot be
subverted by a Supreme Court, since they are the ones that get to
determine, precisely, what the Rule of Law is. You can feel free to
second-guess them, just as they have other courts and both the executive
and legislative branch of government to double-check them. But when you
assume that your interpretation is accurate, consistent, and practical,
merely because the decision agreed with your side and you want that to
be considered an incontrovertible support of the Rule of Law to justify
your conservative hyperbole, you've stepped over the grounds of reason.
I would expect that it might have had something to do with the fact that
the presidential election hinged on the decision that explains why the
US Supreme Court was 'eager' to 'take the case'. In fact, there was law
governing the Florida court's decision; it was trumped, however, by
federal law, as happens on frequent occasions when it comes to Supreme
Courts.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:25:30 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 14:11:20
[...]
>However, liberals in America like to make up rules as they go,
>to suit their needs, so the liberal FL SC decided to just
>wing it and make up laws and changed the already prescribed
>election certification process ad hoc. This was in gross
>violations of the Seperation of Powers, and of the laws
>set forth in Amendment 14. See, back in the post-slavery
>days, local governments would be constantly changing laws
>to prevent Black people from voting. Amendment 14 prevented
>laws from being written to exclude people, and it also
>prevented laws from being changed AFTER the election to change
>the result of the previously held election. This 2nd part
>is EXACTLY what happened in Florida (by the FL Supreme Court)
>and is why the US SC stepped in and vacated their decisions.
Honestly, you can't see how this kind of flagrant partisan poppycock
undermines your position?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:25:32 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 14:03:46
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> >
>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> > >
>> > > <sigh>
>> > >
>> > > Ask any self-respecting legal scholar or lawyer what they
>> > > thought of the two FL Supreme Court rulings. If they say
>> > > anything other than "Partisan" or "way off base", then they're
>> > > not a self-respecting legal scholar or lawyer.
>> >
>> > Too bad Chad can't see this note, but notice the tangle.
>> > Let's rephrase:
>> >
>> > Ask any X what they thought. If the answer is A,
>> > then the X is not an X.
>> >
>> > This kind of illogic can keep a discussion going forever.
>> > No matter what one says, if Chad does like it, he
>> > can say you're not a good person.
>> >
>> > Chris
>
><Chris has a 3rd grade intellect and has proven it with his
>"Nah nah nah boo boo" comments, so his comments will be
>ignored>
>
>>
>> Well, I'm not a self-respecting legal scholar, neither I
>> have one at hand (at least expert of American legal system),
>> but a Supreme US Court ruling "Suspend manual recount until
>> we've taken a decision", and a few days later ruling "Maybe
>> manual recount would be appropriate, but unfortunately now
>> it's too late" has made all Europe laugh heartily at the
>> supposed impartiality of the US Supreme Court (with a
>> majority of Republican members).
>
>That's not at all what happened.
>
>In the second US SC decision, the constitutionality of the
>manual recounts after the Nov 14 deadline were called into
>question. The US SC said that no further recounts should
>happen because they are not constitutional in this respect.
>
>One of the dissenting opinions might have said what you said,
>but other than that, you are either grossly misinformed or
>lying.
>
>
>> So really I can't take seriously a situation where a state
>> (whose governor is a Republican, and brother of a candidate)
>> has carried out an election which challenges in precision
>> and accuracy Bosnia and Kosovo elections, where a state
>> Supreme Court with Democratic majority rules in favor of the
>> Democratic candidate, and a Federal Supreme Court with
>> Republican majority holds a decision until it's too late, to
>> help the Republican candidate.
>
>But it's ok when there are Democrat canvassers proven to be
>completely partisan and fixing the election, a wholly liberal
>Supreme Court who twice ignored the constitution and wrote their
>own laws to support the Democrats, and many other Democrats
>along the line who completely ignored the laws?
>
>Yes, there was a Republican Governer, but that claim means nothing.
>What did he do? Was there even any allegations of him involved
>somehow in fixing the election for the Republicans? Of course not.
>It's silly and childish to even bring up something like that without
>any proof or even allegations of wrong doing.
>
>As to the allegation that the "Republicans" in the US Supreme Court
>waited too long, you are absolutely wrong. The US Supreme Court can
>take months at times to deliberate over a tough decision. Just
>to get a hearing with the US SC can take years in certain cases.
>The fact that they took the case, heard it, and decided within
>about a 2-3 day period is outstanding. If anything, they hurried
>as fast as possible.
To address Giuliano's statement which you respond to; it was the
Republican Secretary of State in Florida who actually screwed the pooch
for all the world to see. Chad will probably point out (or maybe just
engage in some more partisan foot-stomping lies) that she was legally
empowered to do so, but she was not required to do so, and her timing
was about as bad as could be imagined. I don't for a moment think she
was engaging in bad timing purposefully, and I agree to some extent with
the theory that the legal issues should have been decided before the
recount numbers were posted, to keep things clear and impartial. The
problem is, it took too long to get to that point, since the Republicans
were dragging their heels, hoping to rest on the slim margin their
candidate appeared to have the day after the election.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:25:33 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:27:40
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> > Then I would say that both you and they are incompotent NT
>administrators.
>>
>> I'm a Unix admin, I thought I made that clear -
>> The windows reboots are handled by others.
>
>You said that *you* had to get up in 3AM to reboot a BSOD NT
>
>A> An NT server would reboot automatically if BSOD and resume operation
>within minutes.
That NT can be configured to reboot on a blue screen is true. That it
is not the default is disconcerting. That it will "resume operation" is
highly debatable.
>B> If it doesn't, and you know *nothing* about NT, you turn to Google.com
>
>"reboot nt automatically on BSOD"
>
>Go to either the first or second result
>http://www.regedit.com/Enhancements/Windows_NT_and_2000/ (will bring you to
>the second on)
>http://www.regedit.com/detail/229.html
>
>And they will explain you how to do it quickly and easily.
Have you ever stopped to think why it doesn't do this to begin with?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:25:35 GMT
Said JSPL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:38:40 -0500;
[...]
>> > The only stats I know of about web server useage is Netcraft, and Netcraft
>> > doesn't count sites. It counts hostnames. My website has 5 hostnames in
>> > the global DNS and it's a single server. The numbers do not state what you
>> > think they do.
>>
>> What do you think the numbers state?
>
>They state just what he said.
>To put it another way - It's like trying to figure out the apple tree ratio
>in an orchard by simply standing in the barn counting and sorting the
>varieties that were picked.
With a large enough orchard, and a workable value for relative apple
production for each variety, this is really very trivial to determine.
Notice that you have no need to know:
a) the total number of trees
b) the precise number of apples per tree (an average is actually
preferable)
c) the size or reliability of the barn
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: 03 Jan 2001 09:28:02 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Oh life is so hard using Windows isn't it!
> >
> > Yes, it is.
> >
> > Routine batch-processing jobs (like data collection and report generation)
> > is something that I can routinely accomplish with 15-120 minutes
> > of script programming, and then a mere couple of SECONDS to type
> > the command thereafter.
> >
> > Meanwhile, in LoseDOS land, the same task will continue to take
> > several HOURS of my time EVERY WEEK.
>
> Any script you can write in Unix can be written for Windows as well. I
> don't understand your point.
Great! Maybe you can help me translate this UNIX script into an NT
version then:
#!/bin/bash
# simple backup
/etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail stop
/etc/rc.d/init.d/inet stop
/bin/echo Current mountlist is like this:
/bin/df
/bin/echo TAR error messages as follows:
/bin/tar -cvf /dev/tape /home /var/lib /var/named /var/spool /usr/share/fax /var/state
/etc /root /usr/local/samba /usr/local/work /usr/local/bb /apps /usr/local/profiles
/usr/local/www /usr/local/win32/startup > /usr/local/backup/full.`/bin/date +%Y%m%d`
/bin/echo TAR error messages done.
/bin/sleep 60
/bin/sync
/bin/echo Starting email servers
# send HUP
/usr/bin/killall sendmail
/bin/sleep 1
# send death
/usr/bin/killall -9 sendmail
/bin/sleep 1
/etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail start
/etc/rc.d/init.d/inet start
Of course, even opening the tape device takes pages of C++ code under
windows...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux Modems
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:15:29 GMT
I'm curently a new linux user and I'm using Mandrake 7.2
Can anyone suggest to me an easy to configure external modem that I can
find at CompUSA or Best buy? All insight is appreciated.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:35:42 GMT
hackerbabe wrote:
> > Linux doesn't have the 'good' value anymore. Just saying "it's more
> stable"
> > isn't working (and RedHat software's stock will attest to that.)
>
> Microsoft's stock has been dropping also, like many companies in the
> tech industry. Does that mean it's not a good value anymore, either?
umm..
yes. duh.
y'r pal -kK
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
