Linux-Advocacy Digest #614, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (Ed Allen)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Shane Phelps)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Donn Miller)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Cliff Wagner)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: *** THE PROPOSAL *** (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (J Sloan)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:00:30 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:14:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
>> [...]
>>>>To play the Microsoft apologist for a moment, the fact is that a
>>>>'typical user' is not going to know right away when they've been hacked.
>>>>This would be a *major* nightmare for RedHat, and people *would*
>>>>potentially turn away from not just RedHat, but Linux as a whole, if
>>>>they get burned this way.
>>>
>>> This is why Redhat needs to be rightfully flamed whenever
>>> one has the opportunity. Linux is quite capable of running
>>> on different subnets concurrently,even on one physical
>>> network. Certain services simply should not be exposed to
>>> routable subnets.
>>
>>I'm going to jump out with one of my "you don't quite understand how
>>this network thing works" rants, I'm afraid. A service is either
>>exposed or it is not; there is a port listener or daemon or there is
>>not. There is no such thing as an 'unroutable' subnet, therefore
>>there's no way (save potentially removing all advantages of modern
>>networking and henceforth requiring programmers to again twiddle bits on
>>the wire) to differentiate between whether a port is exposed on a
>>routable subnet or not.
>
> Actually, there are several subnets that are reserved for
> local use. Assuming your local router is not malconfigured,
> the traffic you see on those subnets should be rather
> limited.
Again, your knowledge seems sound, but your understanding is flawed.
There are no subnets 'reserved' for anything, unless you're dealing with
a full-blown firewall (which by nature breaks all those rules about how
IP networking works). There are such things as local subnets; those
that are directly connected on the transmission system(s) the computer
is connected to. But that doesn't inform anything but the routing
decision; which MAC address to put on the frame bearing the packet. It
doesn't have squat to do with the packet itself, nor certainly the
datagram (potentially fragments of datagrams, in fact) in the packet.
> Likewise, if you see such traffic coming to you inbound
> parts unknown it's and obvious danger signal.
This is a mechanism for firewall software. IP (routing) software can't
be *allowed*, in fact, to pay attention to it, or you make IP nothing
but a virtualization, not a routing method, and that removes all
benefits from using it.
>>Having a firewall configured and running by default might very well be
>>far more problematic, believe it or not, certainly for Redhat, if not
>
> Why? All you're doing is limiting traffic to certain key
> services to networks you are expecting local traffic on.
Service and networks are inter-related, yes, but they are not
inter-dependant. You can't make software server decisions based on
logical routing, or else the software will only work on a limited set of
physical transmission channels. What you're thinking of, again, is
simply having a complex firewalling method pre-configured, to prevent
from happening what the rules of networking say are exactly what is
supposed to happen.
> Alternately, you could go one step further and restric
> traffic on certain ports only to addresses that have
> entries in your ARP cache. (Dunno if Linux supports
> this or has any plans to)
Indeed; you can do anything you want. That's the problem; if there are
no rules about how things work, there is no interoperability. Modern
firewalling is problematic enough as it is; when you try to use it for
'magic' to protect people from their own ignorance, you invert the value
proposition, and make the network itself far less usable.
Real security should reside on the only part of the network designed and
implemented for that purpose: the 'session layer'. This is part of the
*server process*, not the "network stack". IOW, if you want to be
secure, make sure they can't log in. Trying to prevent their log in
packets from getting to the server is a foolish, even dangerous (because
it is transparent and 'automated') way of ensuring that. Better to make
sure that they can't log in, unless they're authorized.
Kerberos would have been very useful for this kind of thing, if
ubiquitously implemented in all server processes (kind of like DNS).
But unfortunately, that's probably not feasible now, after Microsoft
tried to destroy the standard by assimilation.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:00:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm misquoted in this post.
>Only thing I said was "Linvocates have been saying that for years".
>
No, Max preserved the levels from previous messages.
Those are your words from upthread with context from both you
and Max.
--
"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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:10:17 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:25:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
>>>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:25:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
>> [...]
>>>>>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. ;-)
>>>
>>> Databases.
>>
>>A 'database' is not, by definition or even by convention, a single file.
>
> There's that magic word: "convention".
>
> That's all that separates a table spread across 10 files
> and 5 physical disks from the video that for some
> strange reason can't be similarly divided.
Actually, Jedi, in this case, that's not true. A video stream is not at
all similar to a discrete data store. The very concept of 'structure'
is different, in fact, and there is, despite your claims, some
reasonable validity in requiring a mass store, just the way Chad is
trolling about. I agree with you, that his presentation of the case is
largely fabricated, but one must admit that the 2G limit was, in some
cases, factual, and the lack of availability of a >2G file on Linux
would have been a disincentive to use it for certain scenarios in video
work. Chad probably is lying entirely when he pretends that he would
have found Linux acceptable outside this issue, and it is the lack of
free markets, not any technical limitations of Linux, which ensure that
Microsoft will always have 'the best choice' for Chad and other
sock-puppets.
But, yes, you're beating this issue to death, and its starting to get
rather tired.
[...]
>>Databases started out larger than a single file. The contrary idea
>>didn't even occur to anyone, I would wager, until the advent of PC
>>desktop applications.
>
> That's quite a long time actually.
>
> Oracle is barely older than that.
Well, to people two hundred thousand billion years in the future, our
entire existence will seem like it was part of the Big Bang.
Oracle is younger than that, in fact. PC desktop applications emerged
about the same time that RDBMS were first being implemented. I don't
think Oracle was quite the first. But it is not the timing, but the
context, which I referred to. Still, it is only on the PC desktop
application level that a database is expected to be a single large file.
[...]
>>The real issue is how trivially correctable it is. There are already
>
> Just buy an Alpha. '-)
>
> Besides, it has unmatched FPU performance.
If they were supposedly professional video processors, you'd expect that
they might consider that idea. But Chad said they wanted 'cheap', so
that generally means going with Windows. It might be more expensive
than Linux, but regardless of whether its crapware, its still monopoly
crapware. And so it doesn't really matter how much more expensive it
is, its still more expensive in the end to try to avoid it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 06:09:31 +1100
Ed Allen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 14 Jan 2001 20:53:12
> >>Funny... I can't remember hardly anything that has linux beating NT... 2.7%
> >>"victory" in a web test is hardly much to look it, and it wasn't really an
> >>OS battle as much as an HTTPD one...
> >
> >Well, considering MS, I'm told, put a cache in front of their server,
> >and *still* couldn't beat Linux, I'd say a 2.7% victory is rather
> >telling. The original study had Linux well up over 100% faster, I hear.
> >
> Another part of the story they like to leave out:
>
> W2K 9 disks 8 15,000 RPM 1 10,000 RPM
>
> Linux 5 disks all 10,000 RPM
>
Actually, it's the disk *layout* rather than disk speed which should give
W2K an advantage (all else being equal)
The NT box had a far better disk layout, and used dedicated log disks.
Any DBA will tell you that more spindles are to be preferred over less,
and the logs should be on another spindle - preferably one log disk for
each writer.
There is a great deal of tuning involved in removing disk hot spots.
> If you ran Linux on the better hardware it would be *at least* 27%
> better performance.
>
I couldn't make any estimates as to the amount of improvement to be gained
by optimising the disk layout, but it would certainly help.
I'd like to see these benchmarks re-run using EMC storage or similar.
That'd *really* take them out of the realm of the practical ;-)
[ sigsnip ]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:14:54 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is the crux of the matter. The people who write the drivers for Linux
> know exactly how the hardware works at the lowest programmable level. It
> is clear that Microsoft, and most of the hardware companies producing
> drivers for Windows, don't know how the hardware works at a low level.
> They probably only know C / C++ and can't develop software at the assembler
> level when required (or do so very badly when they have to as they aren't
> assembler programmers).
A lot of companies will advertise: "position available, 3+ years of C+
required". Of course, since they've done the required no. of years of
work doing C++, they get the job. Most interviews are conducted by
human resources, who look for the typical interview crap like eye
contact, poise, as well as meeting the requisite time doing C++ on some
software engineering job somplace. With open source, it's pretty much a
voluntary effort, so it requires more than just passing a job interview
to do the job.
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:15:21 GMT
Said SomeoneElse in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:47:06
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:29:04 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>>Thanks, Gary. I still hope to avoid having to use gcc or any other
>>compiler, but I appreciate the conversation.
>You may not want to write any programs, but...
>
>sometimes the cutting edge stuff only comes in source and you have to
>build it yourself. Typically that is very simple:
>./configure
>make
>make install.
>
>But you will need gcc.
Thanks, 'someoneelse'. I still hope to avoid having to use gcc or any
other compiler, but I appreciate the chance to repeat myself. ;-)
Perhaps if you searched for clues within your text pertaining to what I
would be doing in order to have a need for gcc, and then considered
whether, indeed, I would want to be doing that for some reason, it might
occur to you to recognize, based on everything I've said in the past,
that I don't plan to be doing that.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
:-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:20:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> And EXACTLY the reason why Linux is being ignored on the desktop of
> home users.
Actually, the main reason is that there's no TV advertisements for
Linux, and the store shelf space is almost exclusively filled with
Microsoft products and video games.
> For goodness sakes you guys actually like using the command line to
> play CD's.
Nah, I just stick in a CD and gtcd comes up and starts playing it.
But hey, whatever works for you. I do love using command line tools
to make iso9660 filesystems and then burn them onto a CD-R.
Takes all the work out of it, even that goddam Joliet feature
(and I grew up near Joliet!)
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
You shine like a dead fish in the moonlight.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 20 Jan 2001 19:21:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:53:43 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
>> >> 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
>> >
>> By your claim Fortune 500 = top web site.
>> Someone has already refuted this claim, so I won't
>> waste my breath.
>
>I don't recall saying that Fortune 500 = top web site. Nor do
>I see that anywhere in my previous post. Please show us where
>you see this.
>
>It's my contention that Fortune 500 sites receive MORE hits
>and visits than does your average non-profit or personal site.
>Wouldn't you agree?
Well, duh, that isn't the issue here. You're arguing
about IIS vs. Apache, and your only meaningful
stat relates to fortune 500, making the assertion that
the netcraft stats are skewed due to "my cat fluffy"
sites, yet never have backed up that claim with any
assertion other then "I said so" and "look at the
Fortune 500"...well, gee, we look at the fortune 500,
and that covers, well, gee, 500 companies. That
doesn't mean they are all meaningful players in the
web business.
>Also, Fortune 500 customers are finicky and typically demand
>the best. Many of them conduct business or customer service
>on-line, so a stable web platform is critical. The fact that
>many choose IIS over Apache is the point I'm trying to make.
>A huge majority of them believe that iPlanet and IIS (both
>closed source) are much more reliable and bet their on-line
>business on it.
*LOL* I love how you snipped the quote from the article
you so love to point to. Allow me to post it again.
======== BEGIN QUOTE FROM URL CHAD LOVES SO MUCH =====
The 1999 Fortune 500 list of companies ranks the top corporations
in the United States. We expected the results to be dramatically
different than the Netcraft results because upper management in
big business generally don't understand open source software (OSS).
They often forbid the use of OSS because they confuse it with the
FreeWare and ShareWare from the 1980s. They're not aware that
the quality of Apache rivals the commercial products and surpasses
the commercial products in terms of flexibility and functionality.
======= END QUOTE ====
As I stated and you of course ignored since it refutes your claim,
It's political, not technological, according to your favorite
URL. And yes, "many" of them do conduct business and
customer service online. Does that mean they are meaningfull players
in the online marketspace? I'm sure there are plenty of
people buying direct from boeing.com, or purchasing their
gas from www.chevron.com. In fact, if anything, due to
having a solid foundation outside the web, these companies
are generally less reliant on having a 5-9s website reliability. (Case
in point: walmart closing down for several months to rework
their site). I guess Walmart's business was so "critical" that
they could afford to shut it down all summer long.
On the other hand, companies such as Yahoo! and Amazon are
MUCH more reliant on having the most stable platform possible.
I'd say what they run is more meaningful then a pretty much
most of the Fortune500.
>That's my point. Repute if you wish, but I'm not sure
>what there is to argue, it's basic facts.
Well, your interpretation is wrong according the URL
you provided all of us. Either you're wrong, or the
url you provided is wrong. It was a nice try at
selective response though.
--
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: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:27:23 +0000
mlw wrote:
> There is no operating system that can force 100% consistent application
> behavior, else every application would look like a notepad.
Consistant framework then.
> Not even Windows can claim any more control over this. I don't know what
> applications you run, but the apps that I run on Windows almost never
> use the standard file dialogs.
Most of the applications I run have the same style file save/open dialog
> (Granted it is a Wintendo box, just games, scanner, digital camera, etc.
> Real work is done on Linux.)
Games always use their own style, as do multimedia applications like
cameras. But the majority use the standard dialogs. Why reinvent the wheel?
> > If I restrict myself to KDE only applications then I lose certain system
> > configuration tools as there isn't one written for KDE (that's certainly
> > true of the Mandrake distribution). Linuxconf is one example, it can run
> > in text mode or GUI - but uses the Gtk toolkit.
>
> Hell, not even control panel applets in Windows look the same. What's
> your point?
Most of those don't have file save/open dialogs. Applications like notepad,
word/write, VC++, BC++, Delphi... (the list goes on) - these all use the
same file open / save dialog.
Linux desktop does not have this - isn't Linux about standards?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:29:41 +0000
Bob Hauck wrote:
> > Everyone goes on about how Linux offers me the 'choice' of which desktop
> > I can use, unlike Windows. However, choice here does not equate to
> > consistant style.
>
> Of course not. That's what choice means. Things aren't forced into a
> consistent mold.
But isn't that what standards are all about? If we have, say, Bloggs C and
Smith C, and they don't follow the ANSI standard, how you can you write
anything in C in either one?
> In my mind the real value of KDE and Gnome is not "consistent look and
> feel", but in having standard programming API's with modern features.
> This makes it easier for programmers to come up to speed, resulting in
> more apps being available.
But Gtk and Qt/KDE are totally different. It makes it difficult to write an
application that is neither KDE or GNOME centric.
> > Unfortunately, you can't change this standard - like have different
> > shapes buttons etc. (and this is what I would call a "choice" - not
> > the varying standards Linux offers).
>
> Oh, I see. You are primarily concerned with choice in window dressing.
> Kind of a Doublespeak definition of "choice", don't you think?
Seems reasonable to me.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
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: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:28:43 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:19:49 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This is great. Now, rather that admitting the problem and working to solve it
> >you attack the process.
> >
> >For the sixth time now, I will explain the obvious to lay people who seemingly
> >have never processed a large video in their life.
>
> They understand it alright, they are just trying to make you repeat
> yourself to wear you down.
>
> Classic Penguinista technique used when they have lost a discussion,
> which is generally the case.
Do you have proof of both parts of this assertion?
Personally, arguing about 2 Gb support is kinda moot for most purposes.
And, of course, all these arguments get worn down with time, as the
disputed item is ultimately implemented.
These OS's ebb and flow in quality, and continually leapfrog one
another. The beauty of it is that the competition spurs the quality.
Can you imagine the crap we'd still have (the nadir being Win98, of
course, which sucks memory big-time), if Linux and FreeBSD weren't
around? The gratitude that Winsters owe to the Penguinistas is
unbounded. In diversity there is strength. As Linux grows stronger,
and Windows attempts to match its progress with the 2K Pro versions,
the consumer benefits... even sad sacks like flatfish and chad
(two kinds of fish stories, eh?)
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *** THE PROPOSAL ***
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:35:45 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> We have all read and heard the comments about RedHat's
> beta release compiler which has trouble compiling applications
> with except for the kernel {of course}
Let's get the facts straight: The debate was over whether
gcc-2.96 could compile the kernel - there was never any
question that it compiles everything else with no problem.
Just to be sure, Red Hat shipped "kgcc", an older gcc which
has been known to create stable kernels for some time.
However, it has since become clear that gcc-2.96 compiles
both 2.2 and 2.4 kernel without problems -
> and also this new
> worm {hole fixer worm} which was unleashed on all the RedHat
> 6.2 and 7.0 customers just recently.
dunno, I've not seen it on ANY of my servers -
> Everybody knows I've used Slackware, RedHat, Suse, Mandrake
> and Debian. I've tried them all and I like Debian's
> distribution the best for it's stability and quality and
> it's huge list of supported hardware platforms.
I've tried sls, slack, caldera, turbo, & mandrake. debian may
be fine, I just haven't had time to look at it. I"ve run freebsd
and netbsd too. not to mention Solaris, Irix, HP-UX and UW.
The result? RH suits my needs beset.
> We have two key players here.
>
> We have RedHat who has 80% of the Linux market or more.
probably more like 50-60...
>
> We have Debian who has the largest and most stable of
> the Linux distributions.
I'd say SuSE has the "largest".
> RedHat has the BEST marketing.
I dunno about best, caldera's pretty good at that.
> Debian has the BEST OS.
hmm, isn't it the same kernel?
> Leave Debian as the all volunteer effort and just contribute
> to the system. RedHat would assist in the development using
> the Debian infrastructure. RedHat could then offer two
> seperate distributions to the public with little effort.
If anyone could pull this off, it might be a good thing - but
debian is so anti-commercial, and antagonistic to all other
distros (I think of debian as the freebsd of Linux) that it would
probably never work.
Some consolidation is probably inevitable, but debian and rh
are at the 2 ends of the spectrum.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:44:06 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> He tries to wear you down by dancing around the subject with cute
> words and phrases, all the time avoiding the the direct question. He
> hopes you will get tired of repeating yourself and go away and thus
> let him off the hook.
That's seems about right. That's what just happened in another thread.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:42:08 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> There are many more Apache's out there than IIS, I agree, but so what?
>
> If I set up 15 boxes with Apache and they serve 1 request a day, so what?
That would be silly, you might as well run a pc web server
like iis or even pws if you get 1 request a day.
> If there's a Fortune 500 company whose business depends on their web site,
> or a significant part of it, and they choose IIS, this means something.
and if they choose apache it means just as much.
> People who know and need, use IIS and iPlanet.
People who merely beleive what their microsoft sales rep
tells them use iis.
People who actually do some research and find out about
the state of the art use apache.
> This means people don't trust Apache for much.
So, for instance, amazon doesn't trust apache for much?
I have to say that in 6 years of working with apache on
linux, freebsd, solaris, irix and hpux, I have not once seen
apache crash, or stop unexpectedly for any reason.
That's an impressive record, which inspires confidence.
Do you want to know how often I've seen iis crash?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:43:52 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:52:25 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If there's a Fortune 500 company whose business depends on their web site,
>or a significant part of it, and they choose IIS, this means something.
Please name one Fortune 500 whose business depends on their web site.
Boeing...no. IBM...no. GM...no. Dow...no. GE...no. Well, there must
_one_. Please enlighten me.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
