Linux-Advocacy Digest #494, Volume #31 Mon, 15 Jan 01 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Corel Linux maybe not pulling out... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Open Source & security holes (Bones)
Re: More Linux woes
Re: More Linux woes ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: More Linux woes
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Definition: Desktop, Workstation, Server. (mlw)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Corel Linux maybe not pulling out...
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:50:42 GMT
Has anybody else read the WEB articles on Slashdot about
Corel's uncertainty as to whether or not they will actually
cancel Corel Office 2000 for Linux.
Seems they are not sure if it would be a good idea to leave
now.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:52:31 GMT
In article <bPC86.3396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:ga2r39.p5i.ln@gd2zzx...
>> In article <pxZ76.759$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > Ah... so the falacy comes to light.
>> >
>> > ReiserFS itself isn't shipping. It's still in beta, and it's
>> > still not stable.
>> >
>> > Suse, however, has been including the beta version in its
>> > distributions for people to mess with, but it's, in no way,
>> > the default FS because, of course, it's not stable.
>> >
>> > Why don't you just tell the truth, J Sloan?
>>
>> He is telling the truth. SuSE have been including reiserfs with
>> several distributions. They have contributed extensively with
>> reiserfs devolpment. They have used reiserfs on their own servers
>> for a long time. SuSE support many companies using their OS,
>> visit www.suse.de to find out, and it was because of this they
>> spent a lot of resources helping reiserfs development as their
>> customers wanted it. Now why don't you just play with your toy
>> OS and stop posting crap all the time Chad Myers?
>
><sigh>
>
>I wish you people would stop joining into the middle of the
>thread and misquoting me.
>
>He said that ReiserFS was shipping, which is a lie. SuSE includes
>it in their distributions, no one is debating that. I'm sure
>SuSe contributes too, but who cares. ReiserFS is not complete,
>it's not shipping, and hasn't been thoroughly tested, It's
>included as an option for testing/curiosity.
>
>In either case, it's still nothing like NTFS5, so this whole
>argument is irrelevant.
>
>Linux still doesn't have anything near an enterprise file system
>shipping that includes all the features of NTFS 5.
>
>-Chad
>
>
HELP! Oh dear god I've been misquoted!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Open Source & security holes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:53:36 GMT
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In 2000 over 100 security holes were discovered in Microsoft SW. IIS
> has more than anything else. Would you stake your companies business on
> such a flawed piece of SW?
Well, no.
> Don't worry, they are now going to include it in the kernel to try and
> keep up with Linux. :-)
I highly disapprove of this behavior with Linux, and I hope MS does not
follow suit, because then there will lots of other un-original thinkers
following suit. To me, this is a huge security problem waiting to happen.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:54:18 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:44:28 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The digital cable still requires CPU time to decode the data stream coming
>from the CDROM drive, even through the labeled digital audio conduits.
>
>Linux Mandrake 7.2 does not always activate the "accelerated" driver for
>your video system, and even then, the acceleration is not typically "on par"
3rd party sources are more than happy to provide for you just
to what degree this is the case. In many cases, it's unlikely
to be a factor to anyone except the sort of user that should
have no problem futzing with their system to achieve optimal
performance.
>with Windows directsound and directdraw handling audio & video
>(respectively) .
>
>Skippage is being caused by CPU time being reallocated from the audio
>subsystem (kernel level) to the redraw request being made by XFree86.
>Because Linux does not intelligently detect "important" processes, this will
>continue to be a problem until you upgrade either your X Server, or
>recompile your kernel with better sound modules.
...or you get a clue and TELL the OS what is important like
you might have to do under WinDOS or NT.
>
>Linux sux.
If you are the one making the claim, it is not at all a given
that the 'problem' in question is really actually a problem.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: 16 Jan 2001 01:56:40 GMT
Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:0at86.123$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:> <snip ramblings>
:> Here, sir, is a simple solution to all of your linux woes:
:> Don't use linux.
:> Now wasn't that hard?
: Gee, makes you wonder why no respectable company will even go near Linux.
There are opinions, and there are lies.
This guy outright lies.
I don't need to spend time addressing lies.
*plonk*
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:57:44 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:36:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:54:15 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Like IBM, for instance?
>
>IBM runs NT and OS/2 in their hardware support centers.
>They run VM legacy applications along with Windows at the call center
...they just sold Linux running on an S/390 to a scandinavian
telecomm provider...
[deletia]
They ported db2 to linux and linux to the AS/400 and S/390,
so someone at IBM must think well of it...
...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:59:28 GMT
Kevin Marshall wrote:
>
> I think that some of these counter-arguments I'm reading about the GUI not
> mattering all that much are a bit on the weak side.
For scripting, GUIs are anathema.
> Let's face it, much of
> the reason we buy and use things relies upon the way they make us feel,
> that's what it's about! We wish to buy cars that look nice, clothes that
> make us look attractive, houses that are clean and well designed, etc. Along
> with this, we also care about how all these things run and how long they
> last, and how good of quality they are.
That is why many people abjure automatic transmission, any buy a sportster
with a hot manual stick.
> The same is true for computers,
> especially an OS. These days, the GUI interface is so common in our daily
> lives, it's like a separate room that we go into for hours on end and spend
> quite a bit of our days inside. Who wants to work (or play) in an ugly
> environment?? Not too many I should say.
Work is work. You do the work in the environment that gets the job
done fastest. Sometimes it's the GUI, other times it's the console.
> Yes, there are those who really
> don't care, and I respect that opinion and feeling. Nevertheless, those who
> don't care about how their environment looks, cannot necessarily expect the
> rest of the world to take after them. People do care about how things look,
> especially if they are going to spend a significant part of their lives
> there.
On the other hand, if all they care about is looks, they're probably not
going to get too deep into their system. But that is fine, if it doesn't
bother them.
> As far as Linux goes, it is improving in terms of interface,
Some would argue that it is worsening, because more and more CPU cycles are
being thrown into looks instead of speed.
> and the more it
> improves, the more fun it will become to use.
Not so much fun if it is slow. Case in point... the whole line of Windows
desktop interfaces.
> After all, if GUI is
> insignificant, why does themes.org do so well??
How is this relevant to computer use? More like desktop dressing than
functionality.
> Unfortunately Linux is no
> where near as user friendly as any Windows or Mac OS.
Have you /used/ Linux lately?
> Unless you are a
> programmer and understand compiling, code, libraries, and the rest, you have
> a pretty steep learning curve- one that is questionably worth it for your
> typical user. That includes myself, as I am now content and gratefully
> writing this on a Win2k machine that I am pleased to know I can use!
Good for you! We've heard from your side of the multifaceted environment
of computer users.
Chris
P.S. Quoting A. Kulkis's signature twice is a bit much. One would think
the ugliness of such a thing would repel you. Or are you too lazy to
use the GUI to select and delete that extra text?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:03:11 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Matthew Frost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > A
> > language is a language. You *should* be able to code it on paper, as
> > someone so sarcastically presented up above. Wild and crazy idea, isn't
> > it? <grin>
>
> You can.
> I wouldn't try it, though.
Try taking some C or BASIC code of some good complexity, and diagram it.
Thoroughly. Show the assignments and calculations. You'll flee
gratefully back to simply writing the lines of code.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:03:22 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:37:10 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bones wrote:
>
>> Pete, how much difference does the ATA100 controller make?
>
>Since I switched from 2GByte drives on IDE to 30GByte on ATA66, quite a bit
>of difference actually! It does seem a faster system, though how much
>faster I'm not sure.
IOW, you don't really know. You went from moldy and crusty to
the bleeding edge with no stops in between.
[deletia]
ATA100 isn't even that common on newer motherboards.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Definition: Desktop, Workstation, Server.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:11:47 -0500
I don't know about you, but seeing "desktop" used interchangeably with
"Workstation" seems a bit extreme. Perhaps I am all wrong, but here are
definitions I usually associate with the terms.
Server: A system and/or OS optimized or designed to provide optimal
performance, at the expense of the user interface, for service level
applications like file servers, SQL database servers, web (HTTP) server,
FTP, etc. Low level performance and stability are the key measures of
quality.
Desktop: A system and/or OS optimized or designed to provide optimal
user interface performance and simplicity, at the possible expense of
stability and low level performance.
Workstation: A system which weighs the advantages of both desktop and
server and provides a reasonable compromise between the two. Stability
and low level performance are very important, but usability is also
important.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:10:01 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:19:13
>> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> > Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
>> >> > worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
>> >> > shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
>> >> > mean dittly squat.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Where did you work? At a gas pump?
>> >
>> >1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
>> >Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
>> >hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructure. Windows
>> >2000 was the prime choice. It was the best performing, most stable
>> >server software to serve to both the Mac and PC video editing machines.
>> >Never failed us once.
>>
>> I'm sorry, there comes a point where your fabrications become so obvious
>> that no reasonable person could possibly believe they are anything but,
>> in fact, fabrications. That you 'happened' to 'absolutely need' a
>> single file to be larger than 2GB, I can barely believe (it is one of
>> the favorite "what Linux can't do" in many misinformed and ill-informed
>> discussions, generally resolving to a mistaken belief about the
>> relationship between files and data stores <and an assumption they're
>> identical>).
>
>
>No fabrication Max. Sorry that you're incapable of comprehending it,
>but we worked with several minute long, high definition digital videos
>that would range from 1GB to 8 or 9GB in length.
>
>We were low on budget and my boss suggested I look into linux.
>
>If you look in the archives, you'll notice I posted an open request
>to several Linux newsgroups asking what the optimum configuration for
>my storage needs would be (how to properly set up mac connectivity,
>how to best squeeze file serving performance from Linux, etc).
>
>It was then that I learned that Linux couldn't handle >2GB files on
>a 32-bit platform (something that it still has a problem with today!).
Considering that Alphas still stop all over IA32 based machines
in terms of floating point (and digital media tends to be
chock full of floating point calcs), actually getting an Alpha
for the job wouldn't be such a stupid thing to do.
Thus, restricting the hardware to '32 bit' is entirely arbitrary
on your part and specifically designed to yield the failure that
you really wanted.
[deletia]
FILM QUALITY PRODUCTION VIDEO has been done under Linux, so
a few TV clips shouldn't be a problem.
I would imagine that applications availability would be the
overriding concern and not filesystem limitations.
Afterall, DVD seems to get along just fine.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:10:26 GMT
In article <SDq86.3692$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93t84a$269$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad, I found interesting bits of information at the Spec Web99 site:
>> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99 . For example your question about Tux is
>> probably answered by this URL:
>> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/api-src/Dell-20001128.zip , Dell's Tux
>> SpecWeb99 source code. This is the 'dynamic API' part of the test. It is
>> standard Unix user-space source code, not kernel code, so the dynamic part
>> was very likely running in userspace. So a faulty dynamic API cannot crash
>> the kernel. I hope this helps.
>>
>> Thomas
>
>
>Ok, here you go. If Thomas is correct, than this debate is over. I must
>have been mistaken to think that Tux was operating in kernel mode. I got
>this information from a previous debate on the same subject several weeks ago.
>The Linux supporters never questioned the claim that Tux was a kernel-mode web
>server, so I assumed it to be a fact.
>
>-Chad
>
OH NO! HE WAS MISQUOTED!
>
>>
>> > > > I'm operating under facts I heard in a debate not unlike this one
>several
>> > weeks
>> > > > back. I was under the impression (from what individuals in your
>situation
>> > were
>> > > > telling me) that Tux has a kernel component, or can operate in kernel
>mode.
>> > > > It was this mode that was used in the SpecWeb results to obtain the high
>> > numbers
>> > > > they achieved.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > In other words, you did no research of your own before blasting Tux.
>Your
>> > > confusing Tux and khttpd makes this quite clear.
>> >
>> > Well, people who know more about this than I, including the defenders of
>Linux
>> > were agreeing that the Tux used in SpecWeb99 was running in kernel mode.
>This
>> > is what spawned the debate as to whether the numbers really mean anything
>since
>> > no intelligent person would run a production web site in the kernel.
>> >
>> > Now, if you're saying they were all wrong, then that's different.
>> >
>> > Was the Tux use in that benchmark running kernel mode or not? In the
>previous
>> > debate, they said it was. If you're now saying it wasn't, then please
>provide
>> > a URL. So far, no one has debated that Tux was running kernel mode.
>> >
>> > > khttpd is a kernel mode web server.
>> >
>> > But we're not talking about that, we're talking about Tux.
>> >
>> > > Tux has a kernel component, but also has a user mode component. It was
>> > > designed to be stable and secure while at the same time providing high
>speed.
>> > Two
>> > > very different animals.
>> >
>> > I don't care, if you think it's "stable", if it runs in the kernel, then
>> > the risk of compromise is even higher than user-mode http servers.
>> >
>> > -Chad
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com
>> http://www.deja.com/
>
>
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:12:35 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Let me know when Linux even appears on any major industry benchmarks
> or shows itself beating the heavyweights in any of the major enterprise
> arenas.
Such as Web servers and file servers?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:15:11 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on 14 Jan 2001 20:39:41 GMT
> <93t2qd$gob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Let me know when you can run w2k on a 244 node S/390 cluster.
>
> Would www.bochs.com work? :-)
"The site www.bochs.com runs Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_perl/1.21
PHP/3.0.16 mod_ssl/2.6.0 OpenSSL/0.9.5 on Linux."
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:10:44 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:27:38 GMT
> <eVC86.3399$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on 14 Jan 2001 20:39:41 GMT
> >> <93t2qd$gob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> [snip for brevity]
>
> >> >Let me know when you can run w2k on a 244 node S/390 cluster.
> >>
> >> Would www.bochs.com work? :-)
> >
> >To (.):
> >
> >Let me know when Linux even appears on any major industry benchmarks
> >or shows itself beating the heavyweights in any of the major enterprise
> >arenas.
>
> Mindcraft has already been done, and Linux failed, pretty badly too.
> This is not to say it has much credibility, from what I've seen,
> but Mindcraft II showed similar results, and fixed some of the biases
> in Mindcraft I.
>
> Fixes are either in the works, or already incorporated into 2.4.x
> (and possibly 2.2.x as well). I've yet to see Mindcraft III.
>
> However, other benchmarks (c't comes to mind) showed it to be
> successful. Whom does one believe?
>
> I've not heard about a TPC or TPD benchmark yet. I'm not sure
> Linux will do well there, unless it runs on heavy hardware such
> as an S/390, or perhaps a big multiCPU Sparc.
I don't really consider Mindcraft or ZDNet major industry benchmarks,
necessarily. While relevant, TPC and similar industry benchmarks
are more reliable and standards based.
c't is just FUD all around no matter what they're comparing.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:29:00 GMT
In article <UwK86.78011$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93v12e$3vs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Linux has no quality software.
>>
>> Could have fooled me. Oh well --- what *does*, then?
>
>Please tell me your kidding...
>
>
>
Microsoft doesn't have any quality software.
Microsoft office alone has over 33,000 bugs reported.
Then there's the STING which is the cost.
Basically, Microsoft Windows users have an expensive
investment junk software which will be obsolete
the following year.
How many time have you called for support and hear
the answer, that will be fixed with the next service
pack.
Well! If I'm paying $350 for the full install for
W2k then the last thing I want to hear is it will
be FIXED with the next Service pack.
Now you take this Debian 2.2R2 distro I have.
Everything works, the security is excellent, the
performance is breathtaking, the cost is $0.
Man, Debian has so much more than Microsoft.
The old saying you get what you pay for doesn't
apply to GPL'd code.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:14:37 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:19:13
> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
> >> >> > worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
> >> >> > shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
> >> >> > mean dittly squat.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Where did you work? At a gas pump?
> >> >
> >> >1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
> >> >Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
> >> >hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructure. Windows
> >> >2000 was the prime choice. It was the best performing, most stable
> >> >server software to serve to both the Mac and PC video editing machines.
> >> >Never failed us once.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry, there comes a point where your fabrications become so obvious
> >> that no reasonable person could possibly believe they are anything but,
> >> in fact, fabrications. That you 'happened' to 'absolutely need' a
> >> single file to be larger than 2GB, I can barely believe (it is one of
> >> the favorite "what Linux can't do" in many misinformed and ill-informed
> >> discussions, generally resolving to a mistaken belief about the
> >> relationship between files and data stores <and an assumption they're
> >> identical>).
> >
> >
> >No fabrication Max. Sorry that you're incapable of comprehending it,
> >but we worked with several minute long, high definition digital videos
> >that would range from 1GB to 8 or 9GB in length.
> >
> >We were low on budget and my boss suggested I look into linux.
> >
> >If you look in the archives, you'll notice I posted an open request
> >to several Linux newsgroups asking what the optimum configuration for
> >my storage needs would be (how to properly set up mac connectivity,
> >how to best squeeze file serving performance from Linux, etc).
> >
> >It was then that I learned that Linux couldn't handle >2GB files on
> >a 32-bit platform (something that it still has a problem with today!).
>
> Considering that Alphas still stop all over IA32 based machines
> in terms of floating point (and digital media tends to be
> chock full of floating point calcs), actually getting an Alpha
> for the job wouldn't be such a stupid thing to do.
Like I said, I was looking for a relatively inexpensive solution,
which is why Linux was in the running.
If I was going to buy a bunch of big, expensive hardware, I
wouldn't have bothered with Linux in the first place.
> Thus, restricting the hardware to '32 bit' is entirely arbitrary
> on your part and specifically designed to yield the failure that
> you really wanted.
>
> [deletia]
>
> FILM QUALITY PRODUCTION VIDEO has been done under Linux, so
> a few TV clips shouldn't be a problem.
They either had to clip everything to approx 15-minute segments
(2gb at the encoding rate we were using), or they were using
big, expensive hardware. Remember, we were trying to keep
it relatively inexpensive.
> I would imagine that applications availability would be the
> overriding concern and not filesystem limitations.
>
> Afterall, DVD seems to get along just fine.
We wouldn't think of doing the video product on Linux, give
me a break, what a joke. We just needed tons of storage space.
The Macs and the Windows boxes did all the recording, editing,
and preprocessing, I just needed some mondo storage.
After looking into it, Linux couldn't even do that well. With
all the stability problems with ext2, and it's laughable design
and all the limitations, it was quickly out of the running.
Linux may be free, but you get what you pay for, we found out.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
