Linux-Advocacy Digest #617, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 17:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows curses fast computers ("Adam Warner")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Donn Miller)
Re: Ed is the standard editor (James Knott)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (sfcybear)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (SoneoneElse)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (SoneoneElse)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Poor Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("MH")
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("Jan Johanson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:10:34 +1200
Hi Pete,
> > And yet FreeBSD and Linux don't have this problem.
>
> I'm curious - how do they do it? Do they do what was mentioned in another
> post and force a 'sleep' etc. as mentioned in the spec.
>
> Hmmm... since I have the source code on my Linux box, I could go a-hunting
> myself... 8)
The power down appears to be is based on APM, and since a dual processor
computer is not APM safe you have to power down an SMP box yourself.
So if Erik has only had experience with Linux and SMP computers he would
never have seen a power down (to date, until ACPI support is commonplace).
These observations seem to tie in with the idea that a sleep is first
forced, but as you say someone needs to look at the code to find out :-)
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:15:11 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:53:46 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This comment seems to indicate that you've never even
>seen the players you speak of - how about specifics?
Xmms, with every skin I tried, is so small you can barely read the
track numbers etc.
If you double the size of it, the text looks jagged and nasty.
Kscd looks ok but no skins and it can't even remember it's own songs
directory.
Neither can xmms for that matter.
>I've seen winamp, and I can't say it's any improvement
>over xmms - and that's being generous.
Looks a lot better, especially when run double sized. The text does
look jagged at that setting.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:16:45 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> To be fair, I've hung Netscape more times than I can count with
> it chewing CPU (beware Java applets), but that's not quite the same
> since a kill -9 killed it,
Netscape hangs while looking up hostnames too.
quite aggravating at times.
> and it may be a config problem since
> the Netscape is newer than the Redhat 6.0 system I put it on.
> Now that I'm rebuilding, I might be able to address this issue in
> some form.
6.0 is getting ancient for sure -
I'm running 7.0 with upgrades plus helix gnome and 2.4 kernel.
Huge improvement over 6.0, things like ssh are included now.
> Others have noted that X can crash with Netscape -- but Linux
> proper stays up. Give credit where credit's due, though; in
> this case, it's X's fault, since X shouldn't really crash either,
> even if given a totally stupid request over its socket. (I don't
> have specific version numbers and such, though -- sorry.)
Actually I can't recall seeing netscape hang X.
Netscape itself goes comatose if it can't look up a hostname,
and I have to zap it, and it fairly often dumps core with a bus
error out of the blue, but X stays up, and netscape comes
right back up when started.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:19:13 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:l6ma6.4969$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I have backed up my claim. I have shown that the web
> server stats for Fortune 500 companies varies greatly with
> the netcraft numbers. Why is there such a large discrepency?
You have shown nothing at all to back up any claim that the
Fortune 500 servers handle any large amount of traffic or
that their managers have any particular expertise in the matter
especially compared to sites whose entire business depends
on the web server.
> a.) Netcraft's survey method is grossly inaccurate and/or
> unscientific
> b.) Netcraft includes every site (including every
> invidiual virtual host) which leads to misleading numbers
> due to the large amount of low-traffic unimportant sites.
c.) The F500 sites were built by managers who, instead of
doing their own research bought something from the saleman
who took them out golfing or at least to a nice lunch.
d.) They pulled a name out of a hat and threw enough money at
it to make it work.
e.) Microsoft offered to set it up for them.
> So, if b is the case (which is my contention), and Apache is
> the winner, so what? Apache can be the king of low-traffic sites,
> I don't care. I want to see what server the people who have large
> amounts of money riding on their choice are choosing. And by
> and large they're choosing IIS and iPlanet.
First you need some proof that the F500 sites are high-traffic. Which
do you claim would match google, yahoo, or deja?
> It's simple facts, I don't understand why you guys have such a
> hard time with it.
Because you obviously just made up the idea that F500 sites are
especially busy or important.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:21:43 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> complicated). If I get time, I might post a comparison between
> using the Microsoft open or save dialog, versus Motif's widget,
> which I don't have handy right now because I don't have LessTif
> installed.
I used to use LessTif, until May 15, 2000. ;-) That's not to say
LessTif shouldn't continue. I guess the biggest obstable preventing the
two from merging is the licensing of both. I decided to go with Open
Motif.
====== 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: James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ed is the standard editor
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:26:36 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:29:44 GMT
> <c1.2b5.2Z0j7K$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Marc L. Cohen"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>And considering that when I first used ed, the standard interface was a
> >>Teletype terminal, not only powerful, but efficient.
> >
> >An ASR-33 ? No carpal tunnel with *that* baby ! wham ! wham ! wham !
> >on each key, slow and deliberate, and watch the cheesy yellow paper to
> >make sure you hit each one hard enough. Mistake ? Uh-oh, backspace,
> >backspace, wham ! null character, holes across all eight rows ... at least
> >it wasn't a Flexowriter. All these modern pansy editors that make correcting
> >so easy ... (remember going to school in the snow with barbed wire
> >wrapped around your bare feet for traction ? :-)
>
> I don't remember the Flexowriter, but I did go to school in the snow
> in my very early years. Of course, that's nothing; many of them
> older than me will tell you that they went to school walking 5 miles
> barefoot in the snow, and it was uphill both ways. :-)
>
> And I've also used ASR-33s. I'll admit, I haven't seen one since
> high school, though. :-)
I used to repair & overhaul the damn things. That's why
when I bought a TTY for my old Imsai 8080, I got a 35 ASR
instead. Compared to the 33, the Model 35 was built like a
tank. I was able to buy a surplus machine from my employer
for $150 in 1978.
--
Replies sent via e-mail to this address will be promptly
ignored.
To reply, replace everything to the left of "@" with
"james.knott".
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:20:30 GMT
In article <EN7a6.983$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94astg$krs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <1L5a6.972$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Based on nubers from Netcraft and Uptimes I would find this
> > claim hard
> > > > > > to believe. Just guessing without documentation to back it
up is
> > > hardly
> > > > > > being realistic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? Why don't you list every Linux system listed in
Netcrafts
> > > database
> > > > > and give the average uptime of all of them combined.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll bet you it'll be a lot worse than the MTTF listed in this
> > report.
> > > > >
> > > > > Provide the statistics, since you claim to have them.
> > > >
> > > > I have already posted a semi-random selection of uptimes from
> > Netcraft,
> > > mostly
> > > > including sites run by the software's own vendors. Linux beat
W2K
> > by over
> > > > 4:1.
> > >
> > > semi-random? As in "I posted the sites that met my criteria". You
can
> > have
> > > 100 sites with 10 year uptimes, but if you have 10,000 sites with
1
> > day
> > > utimes you're average is going to be quite low. Since you chose
to
> > ONLY
> > > include high uptimes in what you posted, that is not a valid
> > statistic.
> >
> >
> > The numbers for netcraft show about the same thing as the numbers
from
> > uptimes.org. a while back I put forth a interesting little fact. If
you
> > took ALL the uptime attriobuted to ALL of the MS OS's listed at
> > uptime.org and attributed ALL that time to the W2K servers then used
> > THAT number to calculate the aveage uptime for W2K, W2K's average
uptime
> > is still less than Linux's average uptimes!
> >
> > Here is the method I used (the numbers are out dated now):
> >
> >
>
http://x76.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=5&AN=702846300.1&mhitnum=6&CONTE
> XT=976374076.1878327313
>
> Not only that, but even uptimes.net has acknowledged that their
methodology
> for desktops doesn't work.
>
> http://www.uptimes.net/
>
> "Windows 95/98/ME no longer supported
> 08.01.2001, tgm
But I was talking about W2000. And they are still supporting W2K. Unless
you admiting that W2K is only good for the desktop and is NOT being used
as servers.
Geezz, can you read? If you look at when I did that proof, those OS's
were listed. I added up ALL the time from all the MS boxes and
attributed them to about 1/2 of all the MS boxes, the ones running W2K.
This greatly exagerates the uptime for W2K (which is still supported by
Uptimes and they never said their method does not work). Even with the
exagurated numbers W2K can not keep up with Linux's Uptime numbers.
>
============================================================================
> ----
>
> As of today, Windows 95/98/ME machines can no longer compete in this
> project. Windows 95/98/ME is used for desktops and desktops are
rebooted too
> often too have high uptimes. Support for Windows NT and 2000, being a
server
> OS (yes I know Windows 2000 is used for desktops as well), will stay.
"
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:37:56 GMT
Reply-To: Truthteller
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:15:21 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>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.
Well for one, you might want to try Nautilus which you have to
compile.
As for the others, I don't remember which I had to hand compile and
which installed by themselves ( mozilla you will probably have to
compile, netscape no, but who uses those?).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:38:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:53:50 +0100
<uvh649.191.ln@gd2zzx>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
>
>Following up to my posting this link I'm surprised that
>no one has remarked on how brilliant a bit of advertising
>the ad is. Of course Microsoft are now saying that their
>previous OS's before W2K are crap. The problem is is
>that most people won't notice this. They are used to
>BSOD's and expect them. Now Microsoft are saying you
>can buy something better which will not BSOD so much. How
>many people are just going to say this sounds great, I
>must buy it, without realising that they have been
>conned for years by Microsoft?
Indeed, that's what's so insidious about Microsoft.
A crappy monopoly's upgrades are likely to be noticed (and praised!)
by far many more people than a good non-monopoly, and this is
exacerbated by the monopoly's slick marketing practices
(remember "Start Me Up"?).
Linux, in a way, is helping to improve the software of said
monopoly, but it's still a monopoly.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:23h:04m actually running Linux.
Are you still here?
------------------------------
From: SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:39:45 GMT
Reply-To: Truthteller
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:24:46 +0200, "Ayende Rahien"
<Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> > If he will install windows, he will need a LILO boot disk, because RH
>> > wouldn't boot because Windows will overwrite the MBR.
>> > He will have to reinstall LILO in the MBR if he wish to use Linux.
>>
>> Or make a Linux boot file using the dd command, and putting on a floppy,
>> installing windows, then putting the linux bootfile somewhere and adding
>> it to the list in boot.ini.
>>
>
>Thanks, I remembered that this can be done, but not how.
>However, wouldn't this work on NT only?
>
Yes if you are making an entry in boot.ini.
Boot.ini is used by the NT bootloader and generally not installed win
Win9* ( unless you use NT too).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:41:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:52:49 -0600
<9B2a6.924$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> Did I read this correctly?
>> >>> Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
>> >>> NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
>> >>> Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
>> >
>> >[snipped: The Register's article]
>> >
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >> The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average desktop
>*IS*
>> >> shutdown at night.
>>
>> Not in large corporations it isn't. How are software updates rolled
>> out??
>
>Never heard of wake-on-lan?
An interesting innovation, that. Not sure if Linux would want
to take advantage of such a thing, mind you -- although Linux
already has Advanced Power Management. (Does Linux have the
capability of waking the processor when a cron job needs to run?)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:23h:10m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:48:17 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:49:31 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> And the card still doesn't function properly.
>
>Ah, but it does - this from you who claim to have used linux?
No S/pidf.
Mixer not fully functional.
No surround sound 4 speakers.
And so forth....
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:50:54 -0500
> The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
> to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
We already have. It was called democracy, and it ended today with the
inauguration of President Select. AKA 5 to 4.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: 20 Jan 2001 15:56:24 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
<snip> >
> > I am reporting from what I have seen with my own two eyes. Adding
terminal
> > services did not increase the Mem load by 32 megs...
>
> I submit that the minimum numbers in "Requirements" are probably better
> researched than what you see with your eyes, one can look at a computer
> and not see any specifics what so ever, you usually need to look at a
> program of some sort to find this information. ;-)
"a program of some sort" - have you never used NT?
The minimum requirements are meaningless to me. I am reporting what I've
monitored using basic tools like task manager even. Just that alone is
enough to answer my question. Boot up without TS, write down used memory.
Add TS, reboot and check used memory. Do simple math. Add a user, check
memory, do simple math. I trust this more than I'd trust anything written by
anyone anywhere.
>
<snip> > > >
> > > > OH PLEASE - get real. RDP was designed for low speeds, ICA equally.
You
> > > > cannot saturate a DSL connection with RDP. You have obviously NEVER
used
> > > > this product otheriwse you'd never make such obvious mistakes in
your
> > FUD. I
> > > > have not used TS over 28.8k, true, but I've used it over 56K and
it's
> > ok,
> > > > not speedy but ok. Over 128K ISDN? Just like being there. You really
> > should
> > > > try something before trying to put it down.
> > >
> > > Yes, I have seen it work, and it is sort of cool, but I can also see
> > > that given any real internet connection, with occasional hiccups and
> > > periodic slowness, it is painful to use.
> >
> > Opinions may vary but this is much better than not "even worth
discussing."
>
> Not really, remote GUI administration is really bad. It isn't even an
> option. I am talking about being in your office, while your servers are
> in a colocation facility. Anyone that has used any of these GUI tools in
> this environment knows that they are unusable.
Dude, I really don't understand your experiences. We have two of our web
servers and a database server colocated. if there is ANYWHERE that bandwidth
is not an issue is there. The colocation facility is running redundant
OC48's. I can access it from any dialup anywhere, even 56K AOL dial-up and
get useful speed. I have done this too many times and it's really quit
doable.
I'm convinced you've never used TS.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > It is not viable as a remote administration portal.
> >
> > I disagree in the strongest possible terms. It allows you to do
EVERYTHING
> > as if you were on the console itself. And it works over a 28.8
connection
> > reasonably. What more could be required? Oh, and it is encrypted. And
the
> > data compressed.
>
> How often, every day? Once a week? Only in emergencies?
How about every hour? I use terminal services so frequently I wouldn't know
what to do without it. Often I have 4-8 TS sessions open, sometimes more.
EVERYTHING you think of doing with telnet I'm doing with TS except better of
course, I'm not limited to an archaic command line and it's inherent
limitations and potential for typographic error.
>
> >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't trifle me with your NT crap. It ain't even close.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do a little reading and researching, after you see what can be
done
> > > > through
> > > > > > the built-in terminal services you'll be back to apologize if
you
> > have
> > > > any
> > > > > > decency. W2K can have EVERY administration task performed
remotely.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please, I know NT and 2K very well, thank you. I am, after all, an
> > > > > NT/Windows developer when the money is right. I get my stupid MSDN
> > email
> > > > > updates regularly.
> > > >
> > > > I find that hard to believe - and if it's true then you are a very
poor
> > > > "nt/windows developer" - if you don't even know the basic specs and
> > > > capabilties of Terminal Services.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just tell me, you can dial up AOL, log in to your office system
and
> > > > > administer it easily using terminal services.
> > > >
> > > > ABSOLUTELY - have done this many times when a local ISP wasn't
> > available!!
> > >
> > > I guess your definition of usable is different than mine. I have seen
> > > terminal services and it is slow and cumbersome, I would never
consider
> > > it for the role your are saying it fills. It's speed is kind of
similar
> > > to X, and while I think X is better, I still wouldn't even use X in
this
> > > configuration.
> >
> > Your milage may vary. I've seen X crash so often I would never ever
think of
> > using it. Period.
>
> That's another wonderful part of X. The X server need not run on the
> system which runs the application. The X server runs on the computer
> with the monitor. In a remote environment, a program like "xeyes" is
> tiny, and can run with virtually no load on the remote machine, but it
> is your machine that runs the X server to display the output.
Um... have you ever even read about TS and how it works?
>
> In TS, Windows has to make a "virtual" display system within the remote
> machine, and then it must make a matching virtual display system in the
> machine with the monitor. It is a bad design. It works like so much
> Microsoft crap, nothing was planned ahead, every thing is piled high on
> crap. Had they designed the GUI well from the start, this would be an
> issue.
Bad design is your opinion, I find that quite incorrect. Of course it has
NOTHING to do with your previous paragraph where you reveal you don't even
know how TS works. As for "virtual display system" - I didn't know you
considered a Window in Windows to be a "virtual display system". TS on the
client side is just a very lightweight window displaying some graphics and
I/O. You can access terminal services from any browser by letting it run a
little application in the browser - I don't think this tiny appliation is
firing up a copy of the windows GUI...
Honestly, before continuing, borrow some time on a terminal service system
and see what you've been missing and what you've got all wrong. Imagine
someone is describing X and has it all wrong, what would your reaction be?
Well, that is mine to you.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >Tell me you can add
> > > > > terminal services to heavily loaded web server without affecting
it
> > > > > performance.
> > > >
> > > > don't be silly, TS to a "heavily" loaded web server without
affecting
> > > > performance? Tell me what service you can add to any heavily loaded
> > server
> > > > and not affect performance. The answer is no.
> > >
> > > I UNIX, there is no need to add a service, and this is the point,
remote
> > > access is built in to basic networking, or in the case of SSH, so
> > > lightweight that it does not affect performance.
> >
> > There is no debate. Telnet is a free load for Unix - but it's also the
same
> > for Windows. You do pay a price for Terminal services - let me remind
you
> > and our readers that unlike in NT4, there are two modes of terminal
services
> > with W2K. The mode I'm talking about is remote administration mode, NOT
> > application mode. Application mode is the one that adds overhead and
many
> > megs - remote administration is very lightweight and adds NO overhead if
> > it's not in use. BIG differenes here, perhaps your only experiences are
with
> > application mode TS (or NT4TS, ugh).
>
> I doubt that it is a redesign, it is probably just a stub loader. Even
> so, this may actually be worse because on low memory conditions and high
> load, you may not even be able to start it.
Wrong and untrue.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > BUT - why TS into a web
> > > > server? You can remote admin the entire webserver using HTML tools
tools from
> > any
> > > > web browser without taxing the system in the least. You can telnet
in
> > and do
> > > > it. You can use RPC tools of various kinds. Dude - have you never
even
> > used
> > > > IIS? Come on!
> > >
> > > You can administer the HTTP server and IIS components, no one argues
> > > this. Can you re-home the back end network? Can you add IP routes? Can
> > > you diagnose the Oracle connection problem? What if IIS dies?
> >
> > You do not need IIS for TS to work - that's optional. You can download
TS
> > client from MS free.
> > Yes, you can change anything about the network. Yes, I have added and
> > deleted and modified the IP routing table, added, deleted and changed
the
> > back-end, added, removed, restarted services, added removed edited
users,
> > shares, worked on the DNS, changed DHCP, affected the AD. Never use
Oracle,
> > but can effortlessly manage SQL 7 and 2000... restart IIS (but never had
> > to)
>
> I was referring to "You can remote admin the entire webserver using HTML
> tools."
You can telnet into the box and restart IIS from the command line. As you
could any service.
> >
> > I think I've made my points
>
> I don't think you have:
>
> You can't administer the whole box via telnet/ssh client.
If there is something you can't - I wouldn't care less because I would never
limit myself to a crappy command line interface.
> You can't administer the whole box via web interface.
Ooooooo yes you can - I use remotelyanywhere to do just that, INCLUDING
desktop remote control using any java enabled browser from anywhere.
> You must run Terminal Services to administer everything, but the load on
> a server and the internet bandwidth usage/response make this
> impractical.
You do not HAVE to but there are many things that are done MUCH easier
through TS because, DOH, Windows IS a GUI based OS of course so obviously
more time is spent there than in the command line. You are completely and
categorically wrong about the bandwidth and reponse. Get it? Wrong. Flat out
wrong. Unlike you, I acutally use it and use it heavily and know factually
this is not the case.
>
> Let me reiterate, there are times at my office where ssh is barely
> usable due to network load. A 1/2 to 1 second key stroke response are
> annoying, can you imagine TS in this environment? Sometimes it stops for
> a minute. A remote GUI administration system is not workable in the real
> world. No one that has had to deal with this in would even think about
> it.
You have a network so saturated that you get 1 second delay between
keystrokes in ssh? Dude... an environment that pathetic isn't worth working
in/on. I don't call that an office, I call that a bad day on AOL...
So, you are saying that for the worst possible internet connection
imaginable Terminal services is not an option - ok, I'll agree.
Switch to telnet and perhaps you could find one or two little things you
couldn't do. But, think, if you had the worlds worst connection going, would
you choose that time to make changes to the backend TCP/IP configuration
over an unreliable connection that could puke or corrupt your session? This
is a crap scenario you point.
Let me take a different position: I guess you are foced to rely on a crappy
command line interface to control everything. it's obvious your GUI
interface is incapable of fully managing every aspect of your linux box.
That is terrible. Instead of using the more effiecient tool, you have to
unload your shell-wanna-be and return to the 60s and keystroke your typo's
into a command prompt? And this is what you're promoting? You are actually
proud of this? You suggest that if W2K does not allow 100.00% control over
itself via this archiac means that it's somehow flawed? Especially knowing
that W2K is a GUI based OS and therefore owes no favor to the CLI other than
for the sake of proving an alternative or just to annoy the unix geeks...
Honestly... you might want to reevaluate what you think is superiour and
your choice of what you represent a "good thing" about your choice in an
OS...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
