Linux-Advocacy Digest #594, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?) (Bones)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Cliff Wagner)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:11:20 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Well, nothing defines anti-competitive activity like Apple. [...]
> >Apple isn't as popular as IBM was, or as popular as Microsoft IS.
>
> One of these statements must automatically be incorrect. My guess is
> that its the first one, and the mistake is that you don't know what the
> word "anti-competitive" means. You're using it wrong.
IBM was almost bankrupted from an anti-trust trial for exactly what
Microsoft IS being sued for. Apple does exactly was IBM used to do before
they opened the liscense structure to the "clone" computers. IBM used to
make the computer, the OS, and they got slammed for it (albeit improperly)
from the government.
Apple does the same thing, and yet, they don't sued. I guess it's an
example of the government learning from dumb mistakes.
> Apple has a product. They are the only one that makes that product.
> That doesn't make them anti-competitive. Nor does the fact that that
> product includes multiple components, both OS and hardware. Years ago,
> before Unix, that was the way everybody figured computers would always
> be. Even among Unix vendors, you can see a great deal of effort used to
> differentiate the 'flavors', resulting in Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX, for
> example. I expect that once the illegal monopoly is remedied, the PC
> OEMs will align with various Linux distro producers, and the two might
> ultimately become a single market.
See prior paragraph. Apple restricts ALL available anything for the
platform. They just aren't quite as popular.
> If Apple doesn't encourage license-free cloning of their platform,
> they're going to go out of business, I would think. But they are
> tenacious; people have been proclaiming the demise of Apple since Apple
> started.
Exactly. And yet, Steve Jobs (or Wozinack) manages to revive the company,
for a short time before switching roles between the two. First, making the
clones (and new software liscenses) brought new life, then the clones died,
and the queer color fetish came in and brought new life. A couple more
times of this, and Apple will be Microsoft, and we can do this all again!
> >Yes. Ironiclly, the process of installing hardware under MS-DOS WAS less
> >step intensive than under Linux today.
>
> And even more ironically, the process of installing hardware under
> Windows is usually more steps than under Linux, as well. An idealistic
> 'put the cd in and click something' aside, there are often multiple
> control panels, and that last step "reboot and then recreate the
> machine's state" is a real doozie.
Yes, and under Linux there is endless documentation on a formerly UNIX and
uniform process gone arrwy. There are howto's that make no sense, there are
documentations that are unwritten but "coming soon", which have been that
way for at least a year now, and there are distributor fopas that cause an
ordinarily predicatble platform to do things almost Microsoftian in quality.
Windows is just less step instensive than DOS was, and Linux IS. People
know this when using Linux, some chalk it up to a UNIX backgound, some KNOW
it doesn't HAVE to be this way, and somthing has to change.
> >I am fully aware of how DOS was. It's quite structurally similar to how
> >Linux IS. Not technicaly mind you, but from the END USER STANDPOINT.
>
> No, not from their, either. From a non-end user standpoint, yes. If
> you are ignorant of both, they certainly seem similar.
As the end user of several Linux systems (end being the person who has to
deal with this crap) it sure feels like the glory days of MSDOS, editing
text configurations, locating nearly NONEXISTANT documentation, and finding
idiotic problem after problem when Windows seems to have eradicated all the
minutia, and created a whole different set of problems which are in
themselves easier to live with. Which is the point, Windows problems are
simply easier to live with that Linux problems (as minor as they may or may
not be). The end user is aware of this, and feels no inclination to keep
Linux on as a platform, when Windows was just never as much of a headache,
and if it was, it was easier to get WORK done even with the headaches, than
under Linux.
> >> What might suit one app or game might cause another to fail
> >> to even load. That's why third party tools vendors like Norton
> >> and Quarterdeck did so well.
> >
> >And if those companies made similar software for Linux, you guys might
have
> >something.
>
> You don't need such things in Linux. But, yes, high-level utility
> packages are just one of the many application markets denied anyone who
> doesn't swear fealty to One Microsoft Way.
Why not? EXT2 is horrible at data integrety. I reboot the system
unexpectadly, and am forced to do an fsck (not a bad thing, just irrating).
There is often data integrety damage, which is usually solved by the check.
Granted ReiserFS is signifigantly superior (and if Ext3 EVER leaves the beta
stages...) but file system integrety isn't the only thing maintained by
these programs. What about configuration? Something "stops working"
because "something changed" is what people lambast Windows for, yet the same
applies under Linux. Why can't a utility be present to detect this
functionality problem, and resolve it? Would it be so terrible to have a
program running in the background of a Linux system to detect such problems?
So therefor, they ARE nessecary. Just not present.
Nothing is stopping anyone from making such software (Corel, before the
Microsoft buyout, or any software company...) Except for the possiblity that
no one would use it because Linux just doesn't have the desktop base it
wants to have.
> >Think about it, the "conflict manager" for Linux from Symantic's
> >Norton division. Find all program dependencies quickly, easily, and
resolve
> >them just as simply. Runs in the background, works all the time.
>
> Go for it. You could make a mint, even if you aren't able to GPL it.
See?! It IS a good idea.
> >> Microsoft owned the new standard and IBM didn't have access to it.
> >
> >Why was it the standard? Something in the past had attracted more people
to
> >make THAT the standard.
>
> Actually, no. The end users didn't have to be at all attracted to it;
> the OEMs are what locked the industry into the Microsoft monopoly.
> Hell; anybody could have sold in the market at the time, because the
> market hadn't been built yet; somebody would try just about anything you
> put in a box. The barriers to entry were very low. Until one vendor
> who had market power (sales; a leap to 'popularity' would be uncalled
> for, as I've explained) because of a tie to IBM and no need to price
> their product competitively (there intent was not to sell software, but
> to monopolize) was able to gain monopoly power using something called
> per-processor licensing. This made it cheaper for any OEM to sell all
> DOS than to sell even mostly DOS, even when it would have been most
> attractive to sell some DOS.
The OEM's didn't appear until late 1994 when Microsoft changed the
liscensing policy of the new Windows OS. An OS that people gravitated to
for it's newfound ease of use, which was its selling point. It also ran the
super popular DOS/Windows software of the yester-year, which was popular
during a time when even you can't dispute there was a free, open and
unfettered computer market.
> No, it never really did have anything at all to do with quality, or even
> 'popularity'.
Quality wasn't the problem. Hell, Apple didn't even have the quality
(similar problems under MacOS, remember?) Microsoft had the popular stuff,
which was popular for it's superiority, not quality. People sacraficed
(willingly) quality for ease of use, period.
> >They still used it because it WAS superior to do what they wanted. And
> >that's what matters.
>
> No, they used it because it was superior to not using anything, and
> those were the only two choices. That's what matters.
This absense of a "free econimy" argument is getting old. OEM's decided to
bundle Windows because it was popular, more popular than the monoploly that
formed AFTERWARD. Microsoft had a product people liked; Windows. OEM's had
no choice but to give the people what they liked in their new systems. The
monopoly followed after.
> >It had enough quality for them.
>
> Is that why its become traditional to always upgrade to the newest
> version?
Are you implying that Linux software can remain at a single version while
upgrades are available? You mean like with software programs with huge, and
idiotic secuirty holes in it that are literal vulernatiblities in
themselves? Where an update is available, and a pain in the ass to obtain &
implement (unless compiled and availble from the distro maker?). This
worked for UNIX because there weren't as many UNIX distro's available (and
as popular) as all the Linux distro's availble now. There are so many
Linux's that relying on distro makers to do their job and recompile software
is just flat out dumb, and takes WAY too long. How long has it been since
Caldera updated XFree86 in eDesktop? How about generic components under
eServer? While the maker of the component has repaired, replaced, redated
and rereleased numerious revisions of their program, how long is it until a
distro maker catches up by recompiling & rereleasing the upgrade?
How many stability problems exist in The GIMP 1.1.2 while 1.2 is out, in
release version? It's been nearly a month since the release of The GIMP
1.2. And we've all seen The GIMP crash using ScriptFU once, twice, three
times, excessively...
> >If something had come out with better
> >quality AND ease of use, along with documentation and support, Microsoft
> >wouldn't exist today.
>
> If Microsoft didn't exist today, a lot of people would have come out
> with better quality AND ease of use, along with documentation and
> support. Ironically enough, we know this to be the case because
> Microsoft has 97% of the market locked in to a Win32 OS monopoly. If
> they were competitive, they would have competition.
Linux is out, supplying a platform AND a way to circumvent Microsoft
"opression", and the people are loosing paitence.
> >But they all follow what the consumer demands, don't they. Consumer
demands
> >follow inflation, deflation, branding, and general popularity.
>
> Consumer demand demands diversity; competition. This is the Economics
> 101 principle you're missing. Without competition, there is no free
> market. Without a free market, the concept of 'consumer demand' becomes
> meaningless. One might as well call them 'capitulations of the
> victims'.
Except the people decided what they wanted, and they got it. The inital
decision came when there WAS free competition. Now there is again, Linux
has the CHANCE to get a desktop share, but it can't hold a candle, except
for "it's free" and "it's morally correct" against Microsoft.
People won't even think twice about Linux's moral, or finantial advantages
(which seem to be all it has) when they can't even figure out how to set up
a dialup connection to get their porno. At least under Windows there was
the "click-and-guess" factor which many people eventually "figure out" as
they are navigating their system.
This factor doesn't even exist under Linux. You can point, click and guess
your way into oblivion before you will accomplish your task.
> >> The real world is seldom as simple as theory.
> >
> >But theroy often applies.
>
> Only in theory. ;-)
Cute.....
> >The ideal seems to be that Microsoft had the better product.
>
> No, the ideal is that supply and demand results in better products.
> Which is why your not completely representing that ideal when you
> consider Microsoft's products 'better', since by entirely controlling
> the supply (monopolizing), Microsoft, not the free market, determined
> the demand.
The demand is ungodly high for a Microsoft alternative. Linux has the
attention, but not the technology to surpass Windows on the desktop. This
is a task that MUST be accomplished while Linux has a spotlight under
magizenes, web sites, news reports. Hell, I'd bet Linus nearly wet himself
with joy when Peter Jennings said "...Linux operating system..." on ABC's
World News tonight. Come on, you've got the spot light, USE IT. Put aside
pathetic, and empty reasons why Linux can't surpass the Windows user
interface, sacrafice some kind of control, do SOMTHING concidered a
"consession" to make Linux more desktop capible, and maybe ALS will stop
receiving posters, and Microsoft will actually have some real competiton on
their hands.
> >The POINT is that WINDOWS PROVIDED A BETTER UI. And it did it by
bypassing
> >the shortfalls of DOS. And the CONSUMER LIKED IT.
>
> Did the consumer ever try DesqView? No, most of them didn't. They
> never got the chance; Microsoft started force-bundling Windows as a
> prerequisite for getting DOS. The application barrier wasn't as high
> back then, certainly, but that would change once Windows was in place.
> Then Office bundling started. Also, the bolting of IE which got them
> caught.
I can honestly say I personaly have NEVER even herd of DesqView.
> >> Except Win3x didn't insulate you from a dosprompt.
> >
> >It didn't have to "insulate", it only had to provide a logical, and
> >functional alternative, which it did. And again, the consumer agreed.
>
> Yes, rather desperately. Which stands to reason, considering how
> painfully limited and completely inadequate the DOS prompt is in
> comparison to, for instance, a Unix shell.
To the end user, they look, and function alike and are therefor inexplicably
linked. People like the pretty pictures. I can't blame them. A good GUI
can outdo a console interface even if it is just through it's intuitivity.
You don't see anyone clammoring for the good days of CP/M on old Apple's.
> Still, arguing that GUIs aren't a good thing is to deny that Apple made
> a fortune making them popular before Microsoft used the idea to prevent
> competition in the PC OS market.
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!!!!!
> >Win95 introduced the DirectX multimedia layer, which revoulitionized PC
> >gaming.
>
> No, it didn't; it bottlenecked PC gaming. More monopoly crapware. Its
> pretty pathetic that the consumer is forced to put up with it. Every
> time I see that tell-tale slump in performance that indicates its a
> DirectX program, I curse it.
Are you insane? Remember when a video game worked on "3dfx & Intel ONLY"
or, "Requires Rendition Verite chipset's only" or "S3 accelerated graphics
ONLY". Direct3D unified the rediculas system of video hardware
dependencies, and unified them into a "complaince" catagory. The Directdraw
interface brought the ability to perform conciderably advanced video
rendering to what people concidered "generic" video cards. Directinput
removed the problems with certian programs working with certian joysticks,
directsound provided an efficent sound subsystem for producing high quality
audio on cheap soundcards. If it weren't for Directsound, we would ALL
still be stuck using Creative Labs Sound Blasters for the rest of our lives.
Direct3D provided a uniformity that made PC gaming POSSIBLE, instead of the
hodgepoge of certian games working on certian video cards and certiain sound
cards on certian processors.
It's how console gaming was shaken up forver...
> Fact is, Microsoft was afraid, as always, that the revolution in PC
> gaming might loosen their grip on the monopoly if they didn't make sure
> they assimilated it to prevent competitive development.
Weak argument concidering what DirectX has done for the PC platform.
> >The consumer agreed, and more games were made for Windows & DirectX
>
> The consumer had no choice; of course they'd want their games to be on
> whatever OS they're using. They didn't choose it to begin with, so the
> monopoly has no problem making sure that if consumers want Windows, they
> have to accept DirectX. Meanwhile, Microsoft is running around like a
> mad-man spending millions of dollars to coerce game developers into
> supporting DirectX, so if consumers want games, they have to accept
> DirectX, thus locking them further into having to accept Windows.
The consumer had a choice, console video gaming.
> This fucking monopoly shit is really insidious. I only wish I was half
> as crazed as describing it makes me sound; perhaps it wouldn't scare me
> so much, then.
Well, you have a point. My agenda senses are tingeling...
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:15:22 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >How would you characterize the difference, Charlie?
>
> Conservative versus bleeding edge. Debian seems to be much
> more conservative about what it includes. This includes
> licencing philosphy. They also tend to package the older,
> more stable version of a component. They also seem to
> concentrate first on getting particular core functionality
> (like packaging) right before going after flash and market
> appeal.
Which is what keeps debian unususable to only the most obsessed of Linux
fans.
> They're kinda of like Slackware in that they are relatively
> not market driven but with more of a usability focus (like
> package management).
Since the package and structure system of Debian hasn't changed in, what,
four years? I think they could invest SOME Time into "flash", although I
hear the next unstable release of Deiban comes with a nice installer AND
central admin software...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:21:46 GMT
> Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
[snip]
> It's good to know about Linux's stability and reliability, because it's
> another weapon in the arsenal. However, though Windows isn't "best" in these
> areas, it's "good enough" for a huge number of people. How do we convince
> these people?
(long)
Well, its obviously going to be a rough ride. There is an initial investment
in time and patience to begin with, and unfortunately new computer users are
content to stay at the level of inefficiency that point-and-click GUIs
afford them; many are downright belligerent when you try to re-educate them,
(I'm not talking about any 're-education' that goes on in this NG.) Fear
makes people irrational.
The majority of new users dishing out cash for computer systems now are not
the technically-inclined hobbyists or ex-sysops of yesteryear. These people
do not know better, and are greatly influenced by the gimmicks that
salespeople employ to push hardware and software. Sadly, these salesfolk are
usually only slightly more knowledgeable than the buyers. The potential and
repeat buyers cannot escape the collective barrage-a-thon of Windows-centric
saleshype, since status-quo business types permanently latch onto simple,
stupid sales strategies like barnacles drenched in superglue.
OSes like Windows and MacOS are "good enough" because almost none of their
users have experienced anything else. What is their reference to judge
against? How can a potential OS 'defector' possibly ponder an alternative
when they have zero practical experience with anything else except software
built around the same, tired concepts? How can a potential user get exposed
to something new when her sales-barnacle refuses to remove himself from the
mighty bow of USS Redmond?
The answer may lie in some practical and not-so-practical demonstrations of
Linux' flexibility and usability. We can sit here and argue technical points
until the Sun vaporizes the Earth, but years of retail tel-obotimizing have
successfully taught consumers that those benefits which cannot immediately
be seen do not exist. The collective decision-making maturity of the average
buyer is now that of a 3 year old: A successful product must make
entertaining sounds, be painted in loud colors and look like it was made by
Fisher-Price. [ironically, Toys R Us used to sell computers]
People aren't going to go out and *read* the information, they insist on
demonstration; its so much easier than research. How many Amigas were sold
to people who enjoyed the demo of what eventually became Battle Chess? How
many Macs were sold to folks who liked the digital stereo sound, or
synthesized speech? Linux has it tough, it has to shake the
all-work-and-no-play reputation that it inherited from UNIX, but still
maintain a great record of reliability and flexibility for heavy-duty use.
MacOS, for example, has it much easier. I has to just behave like a toy
because that is what buyers expect.
I feel that the major draw to Linux will be with automation and
competitively-priced services. It is relatively easy for a tech with some
programming experience to learn about and then modify the operating system
and applications to suit a user's needs. Any tech could teach himself some
basic but extremely useful scripting and coding practices. No information is
hidden from an open source developer or user. With multiple computers in the
home, networks for the masses are right around the corner. I suggest
Linux-oriented businesses not wait for some other company to back up their
marketing dumptrucks and unload their binary refuse in buyer's living rooms,
thereby defining what trash consumers will put up with.
> I don't want to see Linux become a consumer-targeted OS, but dammit, I want
> enough people to use it so that MS does not consume the planet.
Linux will never become solely a consumer-targeted OS. Its impossible, since
no one developer can completely control another developer.
An aside:
Speaking of MS dominating things... I always find it entertaining to watch
two bumbling giants beat the crap out of eachother. (strangely, pro
wrestling is not my favorite form of entertainment.) I can't wait to see
what happens when MS and AOL duke it out, but as a sideline, I'm watching
what's going on with Expedia and Priceline. Priceline supposedly pays
royalties to an IP firm to use a patent which basically can be summed up
like this:
"Have an Internet-based business which allows people to suggest their own
price for products and services."
The ridiculously technologically ass-backwards folks at the Patent Office
actually granted a patent for this idea, and Expedia is thinking about
launching a similar service (if they haven't already). I have a feeling it
will be worth my time to watch MS take some swings at that IP firm and vice
versa.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:13:08 GMT
"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:46:37 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
> >
> >"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.
> >
> >Right. 500 "My Cat Fluffy" websites vs 500 e-Commerce Fortune 500
> >company web sites means the same thing.
>
> Please provide proof of this statement.
> From my experience, most "My Cat Fluffy" sites are hosted
> on places like geocities and homestead and places
> like that because people generally don't want to
> pay money to host something so inane.
If you compare surveys from other parties (besides Netcraft), they
mostly survey Fortune500, Global500, etc. Those numbers, IIS is
in the lead or closely follows iPlanet and Apache is far behind.
Netcraft is the only survey where Apache leads.
http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
Netcraft doesn't differeniate between corporate and personal
sites. It also counts each virtual host on a hosting provider.
The numbers are grossly inflated for Apache. All Netcraft's
numbers tell us is that Apache is the choice for hosting providers,
which we already know, so it doesn't really give us anything.
As far as geocities and homestead, there are still many people
who purchase domain names for personal sites or family web sites.
Aside from that, many non-profit organizations, clubs, and
other small organizations have web sites.
The people who have high traffic and who have high demand use
iPlanet and IIS. The people who show pictures of their family
or who post meeting calendars for the local VFW use hosted
Apache virtual hosts.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:15:31 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:02:41
> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Linux has support for at least 2 choices of journaling filesystem
(reiser
> >or
> >> > > ext3 )
> >> >
> >> > Neither of which are stable and each have their own caveats. NTFS 5 has
none
> >> > of these problems.
> >>
> >> So say the windows zealots - but of course it's not true.
> >> Suse has been shipping lvm and reiser for some time now,
> >> and is used in production environments.
> >
> >We just had a huge debate on this about 2 months ago.
>
> You don't have debates, Chad; you troll.
You name call and never provide facts. A "debate" to you is just
exchanging slanders. For the grown-ups, it's posting facts about
your position, something I've yet to see you do.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 20 Jan 2001 03:30:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:24:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed something like:
[useless drivel snipped]
>FACT 75dpi Fonts are installed by default, which make everything look
>painfully small. Increasing the font size only makes them look more
>jagged. Solution go and edit a config file and swap the order of 75dpi
>and 100dpi as they appear in the file. This doesn't include the time
>wasted scouring the net to find this wonderful "Font De-Uglification
>How-To".
I liked this one....better then usual from steve.
"scouring the net"....
open www.lycos.com
search: "font howto"
gee, what do the top 4 results all have in common?
Yups, they're all for the FDU Howto.
Just for kicks, since steve is a MS drone, I went
to msn to search for the same search phrase....
well, after BLAZING along at a snappy 200 BYTES
per second (when I usually get 200K/s), it finally
came back with...the top 4 results for the FDU
howto.
I guess steve went about searching the same
way he went about learning linux,
types in "www.fontde-uglificationhow-to.com"
Unable to locate server??? HOW UNINTIUTIVE!
Windows would have read my mind to tell me
where to find it, or better yet, they would
have told me where I should have been looking for, since
they know better then I do anyways.
[more useless drivel snipped]
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:17:18 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:59:29
> [...]
> >The filesystem doesn't "get in the way" and it's never been an issue. Even
> >NT 4 still kicks Linux's ass in all things performance.
>
> BIG lie.
Not really. The only benchmark I've seen Linux win was with a web server
that no one uses. One benchmark. Please show me ones where Linux wins
(oh yeah, and the FUD ones from c't don't count, only major reputible
companies with standardized benchmarks, not grudges against Microsoft).
>
> [...]
> >> >isn't even out of development yet ... big deal? Do you really think
itanium
> >> >will ship before it runs Windows? (p.s., there is a beta of Windows 2001
> >> >that will run Itanium, butthead)
> >>
> >> When is MS starting development for the 64-bit AMD chip then - linux
development
> >> started at least a month ago. Why shouldn't the itanium ship before a
compatible
> >> version of windows - why should Intel wait for MS to be ready?
> >
> >It's irrelevant, MS is ready, they've had at least 2 or 3 demos of
> >Windows 2000 running on Itanium.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha.
They have. Why do you deny openly available facts? You'd probably say I was
lying if I told you water was wet.
-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
******************************
