Linux-Advocacy Digest #568, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 03:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("kiwiunixman")
Re: I just can't help it! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" (Salvador Peralta)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (J Sloan)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Tom Wilson")
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Tom Wilson")
Re: I just can't help it! (Shane Phelps)
Re: I just can't help it! (Shane Phelps)
Re: I just can't help it! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:32:52 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:D7R96.3031$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:VLQ96.115$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:LuQ96.3021$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:UCh96.4223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
> > > > news:zX896.2827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:KZY86.1680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:OZP86.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:DQC86.3397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:a9y86.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:Yfp86.2938$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find
> > > backdoors.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with
> > > thousands of
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > looking at the source code.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Per my other post, there are exactly 35 developers on
> the
> > > > > Firebird
> > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > Some of them have joined relatively recently.
> SourceForge
> > > shows
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > no one
> > > > > > > > > > > has downloaded their pre-release kits yet.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Your "thousands of people" are as vaprous as
> closed-source
> > > > > security
> > > > > > > is.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But what about the thousands who supposedly review Linux.
> > > From
> > > > > > > > > developers,
> > > > > > > > > > to watchdog groups, to tinkerers, you'd think most of the
> > > obvious
> > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > be flushed out immediately. However, every shipping Linux
> > > release
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > all major distributors still comes riddled with security
> > > exploits
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > mention all other bugs. If Open Source is so superior,
> and
> > > all
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > peer review actually happens as you people say, then how
> are
> > > these
> > > > > > > > > glaring
> > > > > > > > > > bugs slipping through so frequently?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Its' impossible for all bugs to be rooted out of a large
> > > software
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > Only the most glaring and obvious show up quickly. It takes
> > > time for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > more subtle ones to present themselves. With open source,
> the
> > > option
> > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > to patch them as they come along as opposed to placing a
> bug
> > > report
> > > > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > > vendor and counting on them to actually heed it and provide
> a
> > > patch
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > timely manner (or in some cases at all).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So basically you're saying that Open Source offers no
> advantage
> > > for
> > > > > large
> > > > > > > > projects? This is basically what I've been saying all along.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, I'm pointing out something that should be obvious - There's
> no
> > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > system. I, indeed pointed out an advantage to open source,
> though.
> > > You
> > > > > > > neglected to quote the whole response.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You may not be saying that OSS is perfect, but others are
> implying
> > > that.
> > > > > > They are implying that OSS is superior to everything else and
> that
> > > there
> > > > > > is NO reason why you WOULDN'T want to use OSS.
> > > > >
> > > > > To put it in a more rational light, there are many compelling
> reasons
> > > for
> > > > > chosing OSS over CSS. And those have been discussed, shouted,
> > > filibustered,
> > > > > grunted, flamed, and what-not ad-infinitum. IMO, CSS's only
> advantage
> > > is
> > > > > stricter control and less deviation from a set standard. The fewer
> > > cooks at
> > > > > the pot thing. Again, IMO, that alone isn't enough to justify it.
> > > > > Particularly when it comes to the CSS OS we oft discuss around
> here.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, there's no compelling reason for OSS. The stated advantages are
> oft
> > > > never realized (peer review, greater security, better design, etc).
> > > > Particularly when it comes to the OSS OS we oft discuss around here.
> > >
> > > If that were the case it wouldn't be running on so many servers and we
> > > wouldn't be bickering about its' benefits/non-benefits.
> >
> > Well, that doesn't make much sense, now does it?
> >
> > The same would be said about CSS. The thing with OSS is, it's not about
> > OSS, it's simply because Linux is free. People use it, but hardly anyone
> > bets the company one it, and the ones who have are mostly out of business
> > now.
>
> And, if everyone who touched Linux, went out of business.....
>
> "...we wouldn't be bickering about its' benefits/non-benefits."
>
> Who's not making sense?
Mincing words to prove your non-point again?
I said, "anyone who bets the company [on] it", not touches it.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:57:30 -0600
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94886c$6g6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> Milton wrote:
> :>
> :> It is pathetic on so many levels:
> :>
> :> (1) Win2K can't compare for stability to any of its server competition.
> :> (2) NT, despite Microsoft's claims, sucked as bad as we said it did.
> :> (3) Microsoft is "proud" of these numbers, which tells you they have no
> :> idea of what an operating system should be.
>
> : No, it means that MS is being realistic. Linux fails too, and I'd bet
it's
> : MTTF is about the same as Win2k's, that is if you'd bother to be
realistic.
> : Claiming that it's mean (remember, that's average, not extreme) is
> : indefinate is a flat out lie.
>
> : So, if it's not indefinite, what is Linux's MTTF?
>
>
> All available evidence suggests that on good hardware, MTBF is longer
> than the interval between *major* kernel releases (i.e., > 2 years).
> And thus for most practical purposes not even an issue.
Which evidence might that be?
I can give you tons of Linux sites in netcrafts database with averages of a
few days uptime. Of course longer ones exist to (as they do for Win2k), so
clearly you can't be using Netcraft for your evidence.
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:51:37 GMT
If I remember my history rightfully, the Volks Wagon (aka Peoples Car) was
designed for the average working class Joe so that they could afford to own
a car. Hence, has not parallel to the hell Hitler released on the world.
kiwiunixman
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > Well, there you go, just as a side note Pete, America(n's) ALWAYS thinks
> > they are correct, and let them think that way, whilst the rest of the
world
> > lives in reality.
>
> Too true.
>
> I'm just commenting on the Hypocrisy of the American left-wingers who
> get all goo-goo eyed every time they see anything that resembles
> Herr Hitler's "People's Car".
>
> Personally, *I* like a lot of VW products....well-designed, easy to
> maintain engines. But I don't get all sanctimonious and pretend that
> to drive one makes oneself somehow morally superior to other people.
>
>
> >
> > kiwiunixman
> >
> > "Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:934oqt$uk3$05$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm just pointing out the HYPOCRISY of the American left-wingers who
> > > > get soooooooooo hung up on symbolism...and then get all goo-goo
> > misty-eyed
> > > > every time they see a car originally designed as "The Peoples' Car"
> > during
> > > > Hitler's reign.
> > > >
> > > I think you're drunk 24 / 7. You know, that car you're speaking of has
not
> > > ONE part in common with that "Peoples Car". In addition, it looks
quite
> > > different, does not have the motor in the rear, has a water cooled
engine
> > > etc etc. Just to say that this new Beetle has something to do with the
old
> > > one is just bullshit and you know it. You're still an asshole.
> > >
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:59:07 -0600
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Nobody said that. What we're saying is that typical desktops *ARE* shut
> > down at night. This is in contradiction to people who talk about
> > how their
>
> No they aren't. Typical Windows desktops maybe. Does typical mean
> Windows in your world? I take it that you, like Microsoft, think
> these are good results?
Typical desktops are shut down to conserve power. Only recently has power
management become useable in Linux and other OS's.
A company that shuts down it's PC's at night can save millions in
electricity bills.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:55:06 GMT
"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:26:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed something
like:
> >On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:08:23 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> Second Hint:
> Why do you think there's talk about a drop in computer
> pricing and a price war? Anything to do with the
> lackluster sales over the holidays and too many vendors
> having surplus?
That wouldn't support anyone's favorite conspiracy theory!
Take that drivel to alt.econ101!
We're not to be bothered by realities here! <g>
The market IS pretty saturated right now.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:04:19 -0600
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:3a66c38a$1$fuzhry$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In <c1.2b5.2Z0H9N$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/18/2001
> at 05:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > IBM's never called anything
> >a virtual machine (?) so the concept must be totally incompre-
> >hensible to y'all.
http://www.vm.ibm.com/overview/
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:05:41 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> There's one plus to being an NT admin, as I see it. Job security. You're
> almost always needed! You're the most important member of the IT team!
> Without your constant dicking and clicking, the network won't stay up!
Sure, but what happens when your users figure out that you are fixing
all system errors with a reboot and start rebooting all by themselves?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:09:22 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly unscientific
> misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is counted
> as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
Websites are websites, and should be counted as such.
The crux of your complaint is this:
Many windows pc servers are combined to power a single
website, while a single Unix server is capable of powering
many websites
If I understand you correctly, you're complaining that the Unix
web servers have an unfair advantage because they are more
robust, higher performance, thus capable of hosting many more
websites than windows pc servers?
So, in your eyes it would be more fair if each unix system was
limited to a single website? what would be the point of that? In
some sense they might as well be running windows, if all they
could host is a single website -
I think you are whining unnecessarily here.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:11:15 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ocR96.122$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:D7R96.3031$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:VLQ96.115$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:LuQ96.3021$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:UCh96.4223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > news:zX896.2827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:KZY86.1680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:OZP86.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:DQC86.3397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:a9y86.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > > > > news:Yfp86.2938$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find
> > > > backdoors.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with
> > > > thousands of
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > looking at the source code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Per my other post, there are exactly 35 developers
on
> > the
> > > > > > Firebird
> > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Some of them have joined relatively recently.
> > SourceForge
> > > > shows
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > no one
> > > > > > > > > > > > has downloaded their pre-release kits yet.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your "thousands of people" are as vaprous as
> > closed-source
> > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > is.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But what about the thousands who supposedly review
Linux.
> > > > From
> > > > > > > > > > developers,
> > > > > > > > > > > to watchdog groups, to tinkerers, you'd think most of
the
> > > > obvious
> > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > be flushed out immediately. However, every shipping
Linux
> > > > release
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > all major distributors still comes riddled with
security
> > > > exploits
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > mention all other bugs. If Open Source is so
superior,
> > and
> > > > all
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > peer review actually happens as you people say, then
how
> > are
> > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > glaring
> > > > > > > > > > > bugs slipping through so frequently?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Its' impossible for all bugs to be rooted out of a
large
> > > > software
> > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > Only the most glaring and obvious show up quickly. It
takes
> > > > time for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > more subtle ones to present themselves. With open
source,
> > the
> > > > option
> > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > > to patch them as they come along as opposed to placing
a
> > bug
> > > > report
> > > > > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > > > vendor and counting on them to actually heed it and
provide
> > a
> > > > patch
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > timely manner (or in some cases at all).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So basically you're saying that Open Source offers no
> > advantage
> > > > for
> > > > > > large
> > > > > > > > > projects? This is basically what I've been saying all
along.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, I'm pointing out something that should be obvious -
There's
> > no
> > > > > > perfect
> > > > > > > > system. I, indeed pointed out an advantage to open source,
> > though.
> > > > You
> > > > > > > > neglected to quote the whole response.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You may not be saying that OSS is perfect, but others are
> > implying
> > > > that.
> > > > > > > They are implying that OSS is superior to everything else and
> > that
> > > > there
> > > > > > > is NO reason why you WOULDN'T want to use OSS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To put it in a more rational light, there are many compelling
> > reasons
> > > > for
> > > > > > chosing OSS over CSS. And those have been discussed, shouted,
> > > > filibustered,
> > > > > > grunted, flamed, and what-not ad-infinitum. IMO, CSS's only
> > advantage
> > > > is
> > > > > > stricter control and less deviation from a set standard. The
fewer
> > > > cooks at
> > > > > > the pot thing. Again, IMO, that alone isn't enough to justify
it.
> > > > > > Particularly when it comes to the CSS OS we oft discuss around
> > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > OTOH, there's no compelling reason for OSS. The stated advantages
are
> > oft
> > > > > never realized (peer review, greater security, better design,
etc).
> > > > > Particularly when it comes to the OSS OS we oft discuss around
here.
> > > >
> > > > If that were the case it wouldn't be running on so many servers and
we
> > > > wouldn't be bickering about its' benefits/non-benefits.
> > >
> > > Well, that doesn't make much sense, now does it?
> > >
> > > The same would be said about CSS. The thing with OSS is, it's not
about
> > > OSS, it's simply because Linux is free. People use it, but hardly
anyone
> > > bets the company one it, and the ones who have are mostly out of
business
> > > now.
> >
> > And, if everyone who touched Linux, went out of business.....
> >
> > "...we wouldn't be bickering about its' benefits/non-benefits."
> >
> > Who's not making sense?
>
> Mincing words to prove your non-point again?
>
> I said, "anyone who bets the company [on] it", not touches it.
Anyone betting on Linux without taking into consideration that a fair
sized, initial learning curve is involved, deserves the headaches.
As for going out of business, we've "bet" on it for our server backbone. In
a way, we got absolutely NOTHING for the investment. No additional
liscensing expense. No administration work (aside from occasionally
glancing at the logs). No clue that said servers even exist anymore (aside
from the occasional e-mail asking for a new backup tape). We print, share
and access several databases with no headaches day in and day out for month
on end.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:14:25 GMT
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > There's one plus to being an NT admin, as I see it. Job security.
You're
> > almost always needed! You're the most important member of the IT team!
> > Without your constant dicking and clicking, the network won't stay up!
>
> Sure, but what happens when your users figure out that you are fixing
> all system errors with a reboot and start rebooting all by themselves?
McDonalds always has an opening or two...
"Did you reboot the machine?" - "You want fries with that?"
Both are very mantra oriented <g>
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:18:13 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly
unscientific
> > misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is counted
> > as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
>
> Websites are websites, and should be counted as such.
>
> The crux of your complaint is this:
>
> Many windows pc servers are combined to power a single
> website, while a single Unix server is capable of powering
> many websites
>
> If I understand you correctly, you're complaining that the Unix
> web servers have an unfair advantage because they are more
> robust, higher performance, thus capable of hosting many more
> websites than windows pc servers?
>
> So, in your eyes it would be more fair if each unix system was
> limited to a single website? what would be the point of that? In
> some sense they might as well be running windows, if all they
> could host is a single website -
>
> I think you are whining unnecessarily here.
Its' called grasping at a very tenuous straw.
That and beating a dead horse.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:19:14 +1100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The whole Win2K, NT, 98 MTTF study, funded my Microsoft, touted by
> > > Microsoft as proof of improvement, just proves what we have been saying
> > > here for years. Not only that, the MTTF hours in the test mirror very
> > > closely what we have been seeing.
> > >
> > > So, I'm going to take this time to happily gloat.
> > >
> > > Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
> > > NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
> > > Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
> >
> > I love the spin that's now being generated by the Winvocates about the
> > distinction between desktop and server: how these are desktop numbers
> > and don't really reflect on thew serving capabilities of W2K.
>
> Nobody said that. What we're saying is that typical desktops *ARE* shut
> down at night. This is in contradiction to people who talk about how their
> servers are never shut down. DUH! Try to attribute the comments to the
> right context.
>
> Second, as with the TCO debates, until empirical studies on Linux are
> available, you're just spouting hot air about Linux's average MTTF.
THe MS TCO link from the "Linux Myths" page goes to a SPARC/Solaris vs
Compaq/NT cost comparison. Does this mean the MTTF figures should be
Compaq/NT (or even Compaq/W2K) vs SPARC/Solaris?
I'll see your quad-processor P4 and raise you a 64 CPU Starfire :-)
I must be mellowing - I was almost polite about the lack of TCO figures ;-)
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:21:39 +1100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Nobody said that. What we're saying is that typical desktops *ARE* shut
> > > down at night. This is in contradiction to people who talk about
> > > how their
> >
> > No they aren't. Typical Windows desktops maybe. Does typical mean
> > Windows in your world? I take it that you, like Microsoft, think
> > these are good results?
>
> Typical desktops are shut down to conserve power. Only recently has power
> management become useable in Linux and other OS's.
>
> A company that shuts down it's PC's at night can save millions in
> electricity bills.
The other approach is to leave desktops on to conserve the bearings in
the hard disks. This is probably no longer applicable, if it ever was.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:31:14 -0600
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Nobody said that. What we're saying is that typical desktops *ARE*
shut
> > > > down at night. This is in contradiction to people who talk about
> > > > how their
> > >
> > > No they aren't. Typical Windows desktops maybe. Does typical mean
> > > Windows in your world? I take it that you, like Microsoft, think
> > > these are good results?
> >
> > Typical desktops are shut down to conserve power. Only recently has
power
> > management become useable in Linux and other OS's.
> >
> > A company that shuts down it's PC's at night can save millions in
> > electricity bills.
>
> The other approach is to leave desktops on to conserve the bearings in
> the hard disks. This is probably no longer applicable, if it ever was.
Even with companies that leave their PC's on, power management will kick in
to turn the drives off on most PC's by default.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
