Linux-Advocacy Digest #606, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 10:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows curses fast computers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Edward Rosten)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Edward Rosten)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime (sfcybear)
Re: Windows curses fast computers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Capitalism IS freedom! (was Re: Don't Blame Me, Blame "Society" (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (mlw)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (mlw)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Ed Allen)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Ed Allen)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Ed Allen)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:03:50 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:44:11 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam>
wrote:
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
06:58:01
> >> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > > Linux is not at all at fault in this scenario. You have issues
> >with the
> >> >> > > limitations of one filesystem. Exactly like the limitations of
FAT
> >or
> >> >> > > NTFS (I know NTFS can handle larger files than ext2, but that
> >doesn't
> >> >> > > mean it doesn't have its limits).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The only real limitation of NTFS I'm aware of is slow new-file
> >creation when
> >> >> > dealing with orders of tens of millions of files.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are limitations on file sizes and numbers, as there must be...
> >> >> luckily, the max filesize with NTFS is huge, but it wont be long
before
> >> >> people are hitting that limit too (if they haven't already).
> >> >
> >> >16 Exabytes ???
> >> >16 billion Giga byte.
> >> >
> >> >I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that
> >size.
> >>
> >> Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
> >>
> >> And they were really sure *they* were right, too. ;-)
> >
> >Difference is in the size.
> >And the 2GB limit in what exactly? FAT has it (actually, it's a partition
> >limit, but that is beside the point) but it's justifiable, FAT was
designed
> >in the 70s.
> >Linux on 32bit has(d) it, it's not justifiable, because need for such
files
> >exist for a long time, I can assure you that there was no need for 2GB
files
>
> Similarly, the methods for dealing with that sort of limitation
> are relatively simple and low impact. Plus, it's a vfs problem
> not an ext2 problem.
>
> Also, it's only a problem for the only platform in year 2001 to
> STILL running a 70's era design. Everyone else has moved on to
> 64bit architectures.
>
> >in the 70s, when FAT was designed.
> >NTFS was designed in the late 80s, currently the only limitation you
would
> >encounter with file size & partition size is hardware related, not
software
> >related..
> >It will be a long time before you would meet TBs files, hell, even GBs
> >files are rare, Exabyte files are neither being used (or even close to
being
>
> There you likely have THE reason that vfs wasn't fixed sooner.
>
> [deletia]
>
> If you weren't stuck using a hacked version of a 1981 architecture
> due to Lemming consumer behaivor and competitive consumer practices,
> this whole argument would be academic.
>
> I'd certainly rather be running Alpha.
I'll be moving to IA-64 sometimes this year, P4 is not an option, won't
support my Voodoo5, I still didn't take a good look in IA-64, I'll do it
when it is released (when all the bugs start to turn up).
Any tips in the meantime?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:24:01 -0600
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should hold
> > enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then park, but
> > aparently the drive doesn't do this.
>
> And yet FreeBSD and Linux don't have this problem.
How do you know? These drives only recently were released.
Even if they don't, it's because FreeBSD and Linux don't shut down the
computer when you halt the OS.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:20:42 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > > "Linux *has* the EDGE" (not Linux has the edge for me)
> > >
> > > "Linux, it is great"
> >
> > It's a bloody linux advocacy group. I can't believe you are in a linux
> > advocacy group complaining that people are advocation linux. Are you on
> > crack?
>
> Sigh.
>
> Take a look at those posts and tell me you don't see any hype.
Sigh. That's not what I said. Its a fscking ADVOCACY group and you are
complaining about people ADVOCATING linux. What do you want people to
talk about here?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:21:36 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > Heh. With any luck, they'll significanlt improve it with future
> > releases. It will be pretty good if they do that.
>
> They have yet to fix random crashes from all their previous versions.
>
> Also, I thought V6 was supposed to be based on a smaller, lighter library.
> Instead it seems slower than before.
I don't know heat the deal is. How can you need a 400MHZ computer just
to run a web browser at a reasonable speed?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:18:21 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:28:59
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >In the last couple of days I [...]
>
> I don't care. If you haven't noticed it, that's not my problem. It is
> trivial to show that Windows cannot multitask effectively. For one
> small proof, if you're interested, I suggest you download the shareware
> DirectX game DX-Ball2. While running it, begin retrieving a series of
> files from the Internet, or copying large amounts of data locally, or
> accessing a floppy in any way. If you do not see visual confirmation of
> the stuttering and stammering which proves that DirectX is a pile of
> shit, and that Windows (any flavor) can't multi-task worth a shit, then
> you are simply blind.
>
> The same will work for any DirectX game, of course, but it is *always*
> noticeable on DX-Ball, because of the nature of the graphics (not any
> problems in the code; its rather well written, and I've never seen any
> crashes or even a glitch, outside of the inherent lack of reliability
> caused by running on Windows.)
I've DX-Ball, and I've Getright open here, happily downloading several demos
of games with obsene size.
I opened it, no stuttering whatsoever.
The sound is a tad delayed, but that also happens when I've nothing opened.
I don't have a floppy to test it at the moment, but I've a zip drive, just
copies a 50 MB to it and kept on playing, again, no stuttering.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:23:51 GMT
In article <_xda6.1008$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Frank Kruchio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com
> >
> > www.suse.com Suse Linux with Apache server, latest 90 day
moving
> average is 191.45 days
> >
> > www.microsoft.com Win2000 server, latest 90
day
> moving average is 15.93 days
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=redir.windowsmedia.com
>
> latest avage 201 days.
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=insider.microsoft.com
>
> Latest average 196 days
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=beta.visualstudio.net
>
> Latest average 129 days
>
> BTW, this last entry shows a problem with the netcraft statistics.
They
> only list 41 samples for the platform, and 57 samples for the average,
which
> seems to indicate that 16 samples got lost somewhere and were recorded
as
> 0's, bringing the average down by almost 30 days than it should be.
>
> > Does this count in favour of Linux to be reliable as a server ?
>
> No.
Non of them are as high as the best that Linux has done on Netcraft. But
Netcraft is not the only source we have to prove W2K unstable. Remeber
Uptimes? I went though and showed that even if the W2K comuters had ALL
the uptime attributied to ALL the MS OS's (NT, W2K, Win9*) and the
average uptime for W2K was calculated based on this inflated number, W2K
would STILL have an average up time that was far LESS than the average
uptime of Linux!
http://x76.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=5&AN=702846300.1&mhitnum=6&CONTEXT=976374076.1878327313
And you are also forgetting the report Mig posted showing W2K as
unstable. Even reports linked to from MS's web page show W2K as less
than ideal when it comes to stability.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:36:23 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > They didn't "fix" it. They just delayed the shutdown some extra time.
This
> > too will fail eventually when some other disk comes out with a larger
cache.
>
> I don't trust your explanation of the problem, simply because while it
> sounds like the sort of thing Microsoft would do, being the worst OS
> vendor on the planet, surely they can't be that stupid? Or can they?
> Using a "wait loop" until a problem goes away is the stupidest
> methodology any software engineer can use. No self respecting engineer
> would put this into a production product. If Microsoft software
> engineers do this sort of thing regularly, no wonder the uptimes are
> crap and reliability sucks.
The problem, as your own references specifically state, is that there is
*NO* reliable solution to the problem.
> Apple has a tech note about this problem, with a reasonable procedure,
> dated 1996:
> http://www.devworld.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1040.html
Did you even bother to read the section on ATA devices? Let me quote:
"Due to loose interpretations and vendor uniqueness in the ATA Standard,
there is no defined way that a driver can be assured that the disk's cache
has been flushed. "
Their solution may work for drives that are commonly used in Mac's, but we
have no idea if it works for the specific drive mentioned in the original
article.
> So, Microsoft knows about the problem and there are documented
> procedures for handling the problem, so why didn't they test for it in
> QA? Because they can't produce decent product.
What part of "no defined way" do you think is documented?
> Again, I'd fire everyone involved with this crap. It is negligence, pure
> and simple. (1) because they didn't code for this situation, (2) if they
> did code for it, they did not do sufficient research, (3) QA did not
> test for it.
It's hard to test for a drive that doesn't exist.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.feminism,soc.men,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Capitalism IS freedom! (was Re: Don't Blame Me, Blame "Society"
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:37:56 GMT
Newsgroups and followups reset to transition this thread
to comp.os.linux.advocacy -- which happens to be another
newsgroup I frequent. :-)
In talk.abortion, Ray Fischer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:21:12 GMT
<94asmm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>John C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nunnaya Bidniz
>
>>>By definition, a monopoly sells above cost. Pick up any microecon
>>>book, it'll prove that right.
>>
>>Actually, ALL business that make a profit sell above cost.
>
>Microsoft. Profitable.
>
>Internet Explorer.
>
>Price: $0
>
>Cost: >$0
Bear also in mind, of course, that Internet Explorer is a "hook"
or "loss leader" (not sure if that term's in use anymore);
Anyone who uses its special features (among them, ActiveX) [*] is
hooked into Windows, like a tuna, and slowly reeled in.
If they're real lucky, one buys Microsoft Office. :-)
I think that's their real moneymaker, and it's heavily
dependent on ActiveX technology -- which only runs on Windows,
of course.
>
>--
>Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
[*] to be extremely pedantic about it, it's not clear how one "uses"
features such as ActiveX in a Web browser; one has to browse
pages with ActiveX components in them.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:05h:04m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:58:14 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > They didn't "fix" it. They just delayed the shutdown some extra time.
> This
> > > too will fail eventually when some other disk comes out with a larger
> cache.
> >
> > I don't trust your explanation of the problem, simply because while it
> > sounds like the sort of thing Microsoft would do, being the worst OS
> > vendor on the planet, surely they can't be that stupid? Or can they?
> > Using a "wait loop" until a problem goes away is the stupidest
> > methodology any software engineer can use. No self respecting engineer
> > would put this into a production product. If Microsoft software
> > engineers do this sort of thing regularly, no wonder the uptimes are
> > crap and reliability sucks.
>
> The problem, as your own references specifically state, is that there is
> *NO* reliable solution to the problem.
>
> > Apple has a tech note about this problem, with a reasonable procedure,
> > dated 1996:
> > http://www.devworld.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1040.html
>
> Did you even bother to read the section on ATA devices? Let me quote:
>
> "Due to loose interpretations and vendor uniqueness in the ATA Standard,
> there is no defined way that a driver can be assured that the disk's cache
> has been flushed. "
But you missed this:
"One way of handling this is to issue a Standby or Sleep
command to the drive when you want to flush the cache.
This works because the drive must flush the cache before
spinning down. These commands may complete before the
drive completely spins down, but they do not complete
before the cache is flushed."
This, by the way, is documented behavior.
And, how about this paragraph:
"Not all drive vendors implement commands the same way.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the driver writer to
understand the specific workings and implementations of
the commands unique to a vendor's disk drive."
Do you write software for a living? I do, the behavior of ME, in light
of all the evidence, is unacceptable. At the VERY least Microsoft should
have been aware that this is a potential problem and been very
conservative around drives it does not recognize. They didn't because
they don't know how to do anything right.
They know it is a problem, they know it causes data loss, and they know
other companies have work arounds. They have also developed work arounds
for NT. The slipshod organization that Microsoft is, can't do anything
right, to hell with quality or stability, get it to market.
What about all this makes it the hard disk's fault?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:02:29 -0500
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>flush the buffer to disk. How long is Windows supposed to wait before
> >>shutting down? The drive provides no way for the OS to know when the buffer
> >>is fully flushed, so what is the OS supposed to do?
> >>
> >>
>
> > It's supposed to WAIT on the fucking interrupt you god damn idiot!
>
> Wait, I know: it's the HW manufacturer's fault for not putting in a battery
> backup so that the drive can finish flushing the data AFTER Windows pulls
> the plug on the power. Dammit, this is the 21st century. Surely the IDE
> drive should have an embedded processor and a battery backup so that it can
> flush its own data after the power is off?
Are you insane? Do you know what the profit margines of IDE hard disks
are? You are joking, right?
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: 20 Jan 2001 08:54:33 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even if they don't, it's because FreeBSD and Linux don't shut down the
> computer when you halt the OS.
Obviously, you don't know what "shutdown -p now" does on FreeBSD. FreeBSD does
power down with shutdown -p.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:00:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:24:06
> [...]
>>Microsoft wouldn't write a hack httpd just to win a single
>>benchmark and then claim they're the best web server around.
>
>That's a rather naive assumption, to say the least.
>
>>They're content to write the best non-kernel web server and
>>take the market by real-world performance.
>
For those who did not see this lie exposed in the other branch of
this thread...
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/webservers/appserv/wcat.pdf
IIS being trounced by Apache on W2K in a benchmark Microsoft wrote
especially for IIS.
>That would explain the exclusionary dealings, predatory development, and
>monopoly pricing, then, wouldn't it? (sarcasm alert)
>
That was just too appropriate to snip. ;)
--
"Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventually 'invent' Unix."
- George Bonser
"No chance. they only have a finite number of monkeys."
- Thomas Lakofski
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:00:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:12:59
> [...]
>>In a benchmark... real stable. In real world? Just like everything
>>else linux: FLOP.
>
>You snipped this part:
>
>>Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 06:53:53 GMT;
>>>Hate to tell you this, but the world is voting with their
>>>wallets, and the survey says microsoft/iis has been steadily
>>>losing market share to Unix web servers over the past 18
>>>months. They just dipped under the 20% mark.
>>>
>>>Sorry to rain on your parade, but facts are facts.
>
>Does that make you stupid, dishonest, or just a sock puppet?
>
All of the above.
--
"Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventually 'invent' Unix."
- George Bonser
"No chance. they only have a finite number of monkeys."
- Thomas Lakofski
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:00:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A brief lesson in trolling, from Chad Myers, a master of the trade:
>
>Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:04:19
> [...]
>>If you look at the real data, Win2K blew away all the competition including
>>Apache on Linux.
>
>Observe how the more "straight" he states the lie, the more annoying it
>is. This is meant to mimic "calm and reasoned" behavior. It is known
>as "passive aggressive" behavior, and is particularly troublesome in
>individuals with very low self esteem.
>
Since I have Chad killfiled I did not see his original lie but since
we are all here now...
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/webservers/appserv/wcat.pdf
This is IBM running their version of Apache ported to W2K direct
against IIS on W2K running Microsoft's own program designed to show
IIS in its best light.
The report definitely shows Chad is not in touch with reality. IBM
makes no claim about performance on any other OS but if you are
concerned that W2K running on Intel processors won't handle the load
then they will gladly sell you whatever you need, up to a z900 running
Linux and the same IBM Websphere server.
--
"Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventually 'invent' Unix."
- George Bonser
"No chance. they only have a finite number of monkeys."
- Thomas Lakofski
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:02:24 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:41:16 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, as much as I agree with you on the whole, here you are wrong.
>I know for a fact (because I worked for that company 14 years) that
>Honeywell / Bull produced Microchannel-machines AND boards.
>And they were not the only ones. IBM was NOT alone with MC, although it
>never was any good. The advantages were not good enough in the light of the
>diasadvantages compared to ISA (VLB / EISA). PCI incorporated many of the
>good things of MC.
This is true, IBM did Licenses it's MCA to several other companies,
which produced MCA machines as well. They were way a head of their
time, technically, but the buying public just didn't accept them.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
