Linux-Advocacy Digest #621, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Cliff Wagner)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 21 Jan 2001 00:45:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:32:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed something like:
>On 20 Jan 2001 22:47:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Also, this is an aesthetic point, not a usability point.
>>vi if much fuglier then vim when editing any sort of
>>source code, but that hardly makes it unusable.
>>Oh, and standard install of mandrake 7.2 running konqueror
>>looks just fine to me. Browsing sharky extreme using
>>my cordless _wheel_ mouse to navigate while listening to
>>MP3s and licq running off to the side. Yups, my linux install
>>is unusable. Maybe Microsoft can tell me where I want to go
>>today so that I know what I should be doing.
>
>If you want crappy applications, like web browsers that can't properly
>handle certificates (Konqueror), and a wheel mouse that doesn't hover
>correctly, listening to mp3's with a program that can't even remember
>it's own song directory all for the joy of running Linux that's fine
>with me.
Let's see....I haven't had any major problems with konqueror. I
mostly use it because it's just plain fast. I sometimes use
netscape (since some people like to do all sorts of fancy things
with their web sites which aren't standards based and
end up looking like crap in konq or opera). I have no idea
what problem you have with your wheel mouse. Mine behaves
exactly like, well, a wheel mouse should.
I also haven't had any problems with kmp3. Of course I have
an 18 hour playlist, so I guess I don't really care much about
adding songs that often. But when I do, it's right where I
left it. *shrugs*
>As far as where you want to go today, all I can say is that I run
>Mandrake 7.2 right along side of Win2kpro and if you like the Linux
>version of the applications you've mentioned, IMHO the only place you
>can go is forward.
Well, let's see...konqueror vs. ie....at least I can properly
download files in konq. The only problem I mentioned has more
to do with poorly designed sites.
Listening to music....Ummm...Musicmatch and kmp3....well,
uhhh....i load up my music, hit random play, minimize it.
How much more do I really need out of it? I guess I could
ask it to brew up my coffee too.
I have no idea what's wrong with your wheel mouse though.
I love my cordless wheelman. Works the way I expect it to.
If blizzard wrote games for linux (and macromedia ultradev...
with php support), there wouldn't be much reason for me
to even run win2k. Oh, fyi, I have Win2kPro, win2kAS,
BeOS, OS/2 Warp, Stormix, Win98, winME, and Mandrake all
running at home. So it ain't like I've never used anything
else. The thing I love most about my linux box is that it
simply never goes down. My only downtime in the past 2 years
have been a result of:
1) hardware upgrades
2) upgrading to the 2.4 kernel
3) cat stepping on the surge bar
>Microsoft is so far ahead of Linux in those area's it's not even a
>race.
Ahead? It might have better application support, but that
isn't anything more then developers developing for a
monopoly desktop environment. That doesn't have anything
to do necessarily with merits. MusicMatch, ACDSee, DiabloII,
UltraDev....good applications...none of which written by
Microsoft.
>>But back to the point....
>>Your claim of "scouring the net for hours" either makes
>>you a liar or an idiot, since it would take the average
>>user all of 1 minute to find it on the net.
>
>Assuming you know what you are looking for.
>
>I will say that entering "ugly+fonts+linux" with Google produced
>12,300 hits. But of course, it looks fine to you so I guess there is
>no problem...
Well, that makes sense if you're looking for information
on ugly linux fonts. If you're looking to fix them,
If you actually *gasp* read any documentation on linux,
you'd realize that HOWTO is the source for informational
documentation on..how to do things. But of course, that
would mean having to read something. (and don't give
me this stuff that you don't have to do that with windows,
ask if the casual user is going to find where MS decided
to place the utility to create a boot disk).
I'd say "fonts" is pretty intuitive to most users.
And like I said, if you read a LITTLE bit about linux,
you'd realize that HOWTOs are where the info is.
Not all that difficult to figure out. Of course if you
decide to just blindly ignore all the sources of info
readily available, I suppose you could waste a few hours
typing in arbitrary search criteria.
"fugly fonts"
"my fonts suck"
"display looks ugly".....
Sorry that you had to actually use your brain a
little bit to figure out what to search for.
--
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: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:33:31 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Exactly, it doesn't matter one way or the other, right? This is where
> > Apache is the king, because it's free and doesn't matter. All the numbers
> > point to this: large numbers of installations of Apache, but little to
> > show for it.
>
> And you carefully snipped my references to amazon, google, deja,
> which, like yahoo and other large sites, use apache.
So a handful of large sites use Apache, so what? Many more use IIS.
Also, Yahoo is "unknown on FreeBSD".
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:35:20 GMT
"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:59:13 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
> >
> >"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:53:43 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
> >>
> >> >> >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/
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >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?
> >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.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >It's simple facts, I don't understand why you guys have such a
> >hard time with it.
>
> Probably because you make up your own analysis as opposed
> to actually addressing what is on the page you are
> so happy to quote:
> -------- 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 ----
> That basically say that the Fortune500 is skewed due to business
> politics (in case you have problems comprehanding it).
> And are you ever going to get me a number of "all these unimportant
> low-traffic sites" that run on apache? I know of a lot that
> run on IIS as well. Hell, i've designed some for both platforms
> (gotta love companies that believe, if you build it they will come)
So now what biznix says in opin is the bible? The facts speak for
themselves. You can make up all sorts of fairy-tales about business
politics to make up for Apache's poor showing, but it's just
that, fairy tales.
Please show conclusive proof that the reason Fortune 500 companies
don't use Apache is because they think it's shareware. That's an
assinine statement. That URL shows numbers, the rest is just all
idle conjecture.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:36:23 GMT
"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:29:45 GMT, J Sloan typed something like:
> >Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> >> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >
> >And you carefully snipped my references to amazon, google, deja,
> >which, like yahoo and other large sites, use apache.
> >
> >Nice try kid, but you're fighting a losing battle and we all know it.
> >
> >jjs
>
> If there is one thing Chad is good at, it's snipping out every
> thing except for the part he can keep parroting the same
> argument in response to without ever addressing anything else.
> If Microsoft certified that, he'd be an MCP of it.
I refuse to debate on an argument that has no merit.
When you post a 6 page diatribe based on a faulty argument, I don't
bother replying to, nor posting the rest of it because it's
irrelevant. I stop it where it needs to be stopped.
Any good debater would do the same.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:57:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kevin Ford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:58:32 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Ayende Rahien once wrote:
>>
>>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > 2.) We weren't distributing "consumer digital" products, we
>>> > were making videos. Breaking up the already whole videos is
>>> > just ANOTHER step we'd have to go through to reach the final product.
>>> > All because of Linux's poor design. That's not a valid excuse
>>> > when there are plenty of better choices out there.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>Apart from the 18 month self destruct cycle.
Probably caused by that absolutely horrid Master File Table, that
never goes down in size, but always goes up, fragments like
crazy, and generally is a pain in the you know very well where.
(If people don't believe me, obtain a copy of Diskeeper Lite
from Execsoft (?) or maybe Execusoft, and do an Analyze on any NT4 system.
I don't know what Win2k did to "improve" this tool, admittedly, but
it has a nice colorful visual display -- just the thing for those who,
erm, like that sort of thing. :-) Granted, I'm less than sure
about the advantages of defragmentation over the long run, myself.)
The default settings for Virtual Memory probably won't help either.
A fragmented autogrow page table? Yeeee-uck!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:07h:24m actually running Linux.
I was asleep at the switch the rest of the time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:00:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:51:12 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > Chad Myers once wrote:
>> >>
>> >>- MS has one of the best security response time to discovered exploits.
>> >> Even better than Red Hat in most cases. And MS even tests their patches
>> >> and then does a full regression test each Service Pack, something
>> >> Red Hat doesn't do.
>>
>> I've posted this before but I think Mr. Myers needs to see it again.
>
>Myers will say anything.
Would that "anything" include
"Linux is just such a swell operating system"
or
"Linux kicks Win2k's butt"
or
"That penguin is so cute compared to that stupid holey flag"
or
... ?
:-) :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:07h:29m actually running Linux.
The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:49:43 GMT
"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:43:52 GMT, Bob Hauck typed something like:
> >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.
>
> Aww, c'mon Bob, everyone knows that if Boeing didn't sell their
> quota of 777s off their website, they'd go bankrupt. Hell,
> I bought 3 of them for christmas, then went to www.chevron.com
> to buy the fuel to fly them to my parents house. What would
> we ever do if the F500 didn't have web sites????
(Bob Hauck is on my killfile for just those type of ignorant statements)
Cliff is earning his wings in this regards too.
I love the selective listening you guys practice. Pick out two or
three sentences-- completely out of context-- make some assinine statement
based on them, and leave the argument completely unadvanced.
Notice I said, "or a significant part".
IBM's web site is crucial to customer support and public relations.
If IBM didn't have a web site, they wouldn't have as many customers as
they did now. Customers rely on finding information on IBM's web site.
Let's go through a list of Fortune 500 customers, rather than just
a handful of straw-men that Bob picked out and Cliff blind-eyed followed,
shall we?
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fortune500/
- Wall Mart (rank 2) has a large on-line store which conducts significant
business (not a significant portion of their revenue, but significant
by most standards -- millions of dollars at least--)
- IBM (rank 6) as we discussed
- Citigroup (rank 7) on-line banking is becoming bigger and bigger.
Citibank's credit card and banking divisions make significant amounts
of dollars from the web
- AT&T (rank 8) sells a large portion of their cellular phones on-line and
the customer support portion is required for them to stay in business
(there is a level of expectation)
- Bank of America (11) see Citigroup
- HP (rank 13) the web is huge for them. Software, drivers, as well as
selling their hardware
- Compaq (rank 20) obvious
- Home Depot (21) has an ever-increasing web store presence.
- MCI WorldCom (25) sells internet connections as well as
having an on-line bill paying and customer support service
on-line
- Merrill-Lynch (29) conducts a significant amount of business
on-line including trading and investment services in real time.
- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter (30) see Merrill Lynch
- Target (32) conducts significant amounts of business on-line
- Motorol (37) obvious
- Intel (39) obvious
- Ingram Micro (41) maintains retailer relations and ordering
on-line almost exclusively through the web
- Allstate, Prudential, Aetna (47,48,49) conduct significant
amounts of business on-line, as well as having customer
support sections that are huge.
- Bank One (50) See Citigroup
and the biggest one:
- Dell Computer (56) obvious
Shall I continue?
Fortune 500 has a huge stake in the Internet.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:50:37 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:01:30 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:94cfpp$jo9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >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).
> >>
> >> So c't, who has a Spec license (can Mindcraft say that?) and comes from
> >> the same people who, in a magzine called "ix" extensively cover Windows NT,
> >> now has "grudges against Microsoft"?
> >>
> >> Maybe you should, just for a change, *read* the magazine you are
criticizing?
> >
> >Please show me an article in c't that is favorable to Microsoft.
> >
> >Just one.
> >
> >Thank you.
>
> That would merely be a correlation.
>
> There's more than one possible explanation for the situation.
>
> It's just that you don't like the other possibilities.
Enough excuses.
Please show me _AN_ article in c't that is favorable to Microsoft.
Just one.
Thank you.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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?)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:52:55 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:14:48 GMT
> <YPia6.2990$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:38:55 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> >Man, you must really have you head up your ass.
> >>
> >> No, I just don't see what the big deal is.
> >>
> >> I still don't, especially after you've broken down
> >> the "process". The "need" to have a certain duration
> >> of video in a single file is entirely arbitrary.
> >
> >Man, you really are dense. I've explained the obvious 4 or
> >5 times now. When you digitize, it's easier to digitize
> >the entire clip and work with it as a whole.
>
> It depends on the clip. Were I a moviemaker (I'm not), I would
> not want to have a single gigantic file until the very end, during
> final assembly; prior to that, I'd want scenes.
Then you don't understand video processing. Note: these are not
feature-length movies, these are video lectures. When digitizing
them to the computer (through firewire) stopping every 15 minutes
to account for Linux's poor design is not an option.
We have a farm of machines that just take in digital video and
run for hours as they digitize every second of the video. Managing
those every 15 minutes is not an option.
-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
******************************
