Linux-Advocacy Digest #637, Volume #31 Sun, 21 Jan 01 13:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (mlw)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (mlw)
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (.)
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (choad_leyers)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("JS PL")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:49:58 -0500
Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
>
> > Understanding "quality" as it applies to operating systems is just as
> > important for purchasing decisions on computers as understanding anti-lock
> > brakes, fuel injection, and vehicle warrantees are for cars.
> >
> > An educated customer would choose anything but Windows.
>
> In case this is related to the thread "it's not all about up-time" - let me
> start by saying that I'm pretty much in love with Linux (as a concept at least).
>
> I didn't say that up-time isn't important. I just said that I felt it was a
> mistake to focus on up-time as the raison d'etre of Linux. It's quite obvious
> that there are other things that a lot of people feel are more important than
> up-time numbers.
>
> Like application availability. I've spent the last couple of days looking for a
> WYSIWYG web page editor so I don't have to boot into Win2K to use FrontPage or
> Dreamweaver. Yes, yes, I know - those kinds of tools give you dirty HTML, and
> real men code their web pages using vi / emacs / etc. Still, I just want an
> interface where, say, I can select a range in an HTML table and move it
> elsewhere in the table, and see immediately what the result is.
>
> Is it more productive to have a desktop OS that I have reboot a couple times a
> week, but that has applications like Dreamweaver, or is it more productive to
> use an OS that *never* goes down, but that I have to use a text editor to design
> a web page?
Depends.
There's the chicken and the egg. If more people use Linux because it is
more reliable, thus usable, there will be more applications for it.
HTML is an interesting thing to use for an example. I have never seen
any WYSIWYG that produced HTML that was very usable for anything other
than a static page. Certainly difficult to integrate with PHP, ASP,
java, etc. I often end up "post editing" my web pages in vi, because the
graphical programs always mess up the HTML.
Oh, and to address "WYSIWYG" criteria. There is no such capability in
HTML, and people that assume there is always make web pages with serious
formatting errors. The rule is write the page and try it on many
browsers with different fonts and screen resolutions.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: al.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:51:21 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:35:21 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>I am interested in information, not data.
>
>Well, you got it wrong...
Got what wrong? You snipped the context, again. Looking back I see
that you are probably referring to the "doesn't warn sufficiently"
certificate bug in Konqueror. Are you saying that isn't the bug you
were talking about? Why would I have to search on one specific search
site (which obviously doesn't allow meta-search clients like WebFerret
to use their system, so I can't see that they'd be worth searching
anyway) in order to find out about this gripe which you claim is widely
and frequently discussed?
>>Well, so now we have proof you aren't entirely bereft of reading
>>comprehension skills. Good Job, Claire!
>
>You made the statements not me. I merely summarized.
Indeed, that is what I said. Good job. Claire.
>>Wrong again. I have a very good idea of what I'll be "settling" for, as
>>well as what I'll be "stuck" using. I learned the Commodore64 in the
>>mid-80s, the Macintosh in the late 80s, DOS in the early 90s, and both
>>Windows and Unix in the last ten years. I'm quite well aware of how
>>much the application barrier has fortified and inured the Windows
>>monopoly. You seem to have absolutely no idea of just how awful the
>>Windows platform is, under all those apps.
>
>With the exception of Mac which I am just getting into, my resume
>reads pretty much the same,
That isn't my resume, and your certainly doesn't read anything like
mine.
>>Yes, the opportunity to directly observe and compare the harm caused by
>>monopolization is, indeed, one of my goals.
>
>I'll leave it at that, but based upon the applications you mentioned
>you are in for a surprise at how crude some of the Linux alternatives
>really are.
I doubt it. They're free, for christ's sake. Why would it be a
surprise that they're crude?
>You will also see quite clearly, how desktop users have to
>settle for crude inconsistent applications when running Linux.
Of course; I knew that was the case four years ago, when it became
obvious that Microsoft was scared shitless of Linux and would do
anything and everything in their power to ensure that consumers did not
have access to it as a competitive alternative.
That's called restraint of trade, btw, buddy, and its illegal.
>You'll never admit it though.
I'll never admit that it matters how crude the apps on Linux are (though
this is, of course, merely a bit of hyperbole) because it doesn't. Its
the application barrier that prevents development of 'non-crude' Linux
apps, not the crude apps which cause the application barrier. Think
harder.
>After the novelty of the new system wears off, and that joyous feeling
>of being Gates free, the warts will start growing.
I figure the novelty is going to wear off just about the time the
industry is becoming functional again, sometime early next year. Until
then, I have to admit, I am, in a way, looking forward to becoming a
wide-eyed newbie, once again, with lots of new stuff to explore and
master. What I really find exciting is the idea that maybe it will
finally be the last time, since it will finally be on a Unix system, so
I know I won't have to lose all the work I put into it when I'm ready
for something new.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:56:04 -0500
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:49:28 GMT, Lloyd Llewellyn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is it more productive to have a desktop OS that I have reboot a couple
> > times a week, but that has applications like Dreamweaver, or is it
> > more productive to use an OS that *never* goes down, but that I have
> > to use a text editor to design a web page?
>
> The latter. HTML just isn't that hard and modern text editors have lots
> of nifty features for handling it.
>
> The big problem with crashes isn't the time spent rebooting, or the time
> spent re-doing lost work, or any of those immediate things. The problem
> is that the user comes to not trust the system and alters his work
> habits so as to minimize problems, often in ways that reduce his
> productivity (and which often don't really minimize problems either).
>
> The user becomes superstitious, repeating mantras like "reboot every
> morning", "save early and often", and "run only one program at a time"
> because he does not know when the system will fail next or what causes
> the failures. This reduces his productivity compared to what it could
> be if he were able to take full advantage of his tools.
>
> It is difficult to be productive while waving vodoo dolls about in the
> hope that your hard work won't get flushed down the toilet on the whim
> of your computer.
While this is hysterical, it is also very true. I've never seen it
described before, but I have seen this sort of thing often.
My mom, runs turbo tax, then reboots her computer "to be safe" before
running word, and vice versa. She says if she doesn't it crashes. I
don't care how bad Turbo Tax or Word may be, an OS should be able to
handle this stuff. Oh, and she has to reboot after using the dialup
networking, or her computer hangs. If I could get her on Linux, i.e. get
a good tax package for her, I would.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: 21 Jan 2001 17:53:44 GMT
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <94f226$bf1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:23:44 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>Did you read the article? It's *NOT* a clustered computer. It's a
> single
>> >>machine with 20,000 processors.
>> >>
>> >>Why don't you people read the articles you harp on about?
>>
>> > Not enough time as they are too busy reading How-To's.
>>
>> You, claire, as someone who has sworn that you have lots of mainframe
> experience,
>> should understand exactly why erik is wrong; yet somehow interestingly
> you
>> ignore it completely.
> Actualy, I think that I would be more impressed with a single machine
> running 20,000 processors than a 20,000 node cluster. Not that I would
> think this the best way to go for most large scale sites, but it could
> have its place. But the way I read the article, it seems a bit vauge on
> what a "machine" is. It seems the author interchages the word system and
> machine in such a way that makes me think that he did not understand
> what the difference is.
It of course wouldnt be a 20,000 node cluster. The bandwidth required for
that kind of backplane simply doesnt exist. Its probably going to be
at least a few hundred nodes; likely much more.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: 21 Jan 2001 17:54:57 GMT
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <94chqm$esm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In article <MGda6.1010$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:94blks$5ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > Hi "sfcybear",
>> >> >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> >
> http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, apparantly linux is able to scale to 20,000 processors.
>> >> >
>> >> > Compared to windows 2000 datacenter's alleged 32.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thats a pretty big difference.
>> >>
>> >> Man, this isn't even vapor.. it hasn't even been *STARTED*. They
>> > claim to
>> >> not have the machine ready till 2004. Lots of things will change
> in
>> > both
>> >> the Linux and Windows side before then.
>>
>> > Um, to install 10,000 to 20,000 computers in 4 years would mean they
>> > would be installing 2,500 to 5,000 computers a year. That is an
>> > impressive number when you think of the issues involved! I'll be
>> > impressed if they get it done by the end of 2006. But hey Eric, Show
> us
>> > anything that indecates that ANYONE is even THINKING of doing the
> same
>> > with W2K.
>>
>> Ummm...
>>
>> Actually, you can very easily plug in any number of blank computers
>> and have them all kickstart and install themselves off of ONE linux
>> machine.
>>
>> Personally, ive set 20 machines to image themselves after one central
>> machine and gone to lunch; when I came back they were all done and
>> happy.
>>
>> Theres no reason that you wouldnt be able to do this on a very large
>> scale.
>>
> Loading the software onto the box is only a small part of every thing
> required for this project. Think power, floor space, and air
> contitioning all of which needs to be set up BEFORE you even start to
> build the system. Then think about working out the bugs of such a large
> system!
The environment likely already exists. Setting up a machine room for that
kind of equipment is something that IBM is very good at in the first place.
Working the bugs out is bound to take a long time, as with any very large
mainframe setup.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:55:21 GMT
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:40:04 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You seem blissfully unaware that this argument clearly points to how
>little technical merit Windows has, and how forcefully it brings home
>the point that they have been illegally monopolizing in order to ensure
>this result.
No I happen to run those very same applications you do and there is
nothing, that I have found in the Linux world that even comes close.
You will see.
Having *nix experience will help you with the technical details and
cli of Linux, nothing else. It will not make the applications any
better.
I use SMIT or smitty under AIX to configure hardware. Doesn't help me
with Linux though. I use CDE or Perspectives under AIX and its the
same thing.
When you see the pitiful way you will have to read news after using
Agent, or how Agent runs terrible under Whino (Vmware I never tried)
you will understand.
You're argument is based upon not using Linux and relies on how Gates
has monopolized the world.
My argument is based upon having used many different varieties of
Linux and applications.
It's all about applications.
Time will tell.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (choad_leyers)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 21 Jan 2001 17:57:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:04:23 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>I find it hilarious that this Myers asshole calls me "Mr. Personal
>>Attack", when I see people posting messages under the name
>>"[email protected]".
> If you make fun of him he'll put you in his killfile. That'll show you.
It sure showed me.
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:58:08 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:22:28
[...]
>Now you've crossed the line. You've asked T. Max Devlin to produce facts.
>Don't you know that that would break his streak of fact-less posts?
That it would require intense research in order to point out your
baseless presumptions and trivial fabrications is a rather laughable
suggestion, Chad. You haven't even gotten close to making it necessary
for me to work harder coming up with proof that you're a sock-puppet
without two truths to rub together to keep you warm during your
Microsoft briefings. Hell, ROGER made me work harder than you do, more
than two years ago. You're about even with Erik F, quite a bit ahead of
JS/PL and Claire/flathead. But you could take the whole group of you
and 'integrate' you directly into a Windows desktop, and you still
wouldn't have what it takes to make me break a sweat. You just don't
have either the factual support or the skills to debate these matters.
Microsoft produces monopoly crapware, and so there is no basis of
comparison between even W2K and a real OS, as far as I am concerned. I
gave up getting confused about the difference between competitive value
and monopoly domination about a year and a half ago. Every time you
mention some 'problem' you have with Linux, it just makes the case
clearer that the only thing which makes Windows 'popular' and Linux
'crude' is criminal behavior on the part of Gates, Palmer, and their
dupes.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:02:52 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:54:29 -0500;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> >Funny thing is, Windows 2000 on the exact same hardware runs perfectly
all
> >> >the time. Go figure...
> >>
> >> I think he did, and he figured that you were screwing something up. On
> >> the Linux thing, at least. As for W2K, you're just lying.
> >
> >But you would have no way of knowing that I lie when I say that in
approx.
> >11 months my Win2K OS has crashed exactly "once".
>
> Yes, I would. Reason alone is more than enough to consider such a
> statement a fabrication, predicated on a highly selective consideration
> of what a 'crash' is, and more importantly on whether it was 'the OS'.
> Whether it is intentionally dishonest, or a baldfaced lie (which is,
> BTW, an inadvertent, not an obvious, lie) is not so easy to determine,
> though given your posting history, the former seems slightly more
> likely.
>
> >Give me a way or method to crash Win2k, I've yet to find one on my own.
Once again Give me a way or method to crash Win2k, I've yet to find one on
my own.
If it is so unstable there must be a real easy way to cause it to
crash...short of dropping the box down some stairs.
Lets have ONE way. ONE.
>
> Using it is generally sufficient for most, but not all, installations.
>
> >You've never had any experience with Windows 2000 in your life except
what
> >you've read.
>
> To the contrary; my first experience showed that the OS itself crashes
> slightly less often than NT (in keeping with the '13 times more
> reliable' statistic, given the difference between the real-world and
> published studies, even studies of real-world behavior.) Which is to
> say it crashes occasionally, instead of routinely.
>Of course, all the
> applications, drivers, utilities, and such crash even *more* often (the
> X server bombed twice and the Explorer shell itself failed either once
> or twice, depending on how you count it, the very first time I saw W2K.)
>
> >So you just go ahead and advocate an OS you don't use while bashing an OS
> >you've never used and do it all using Windows98 to do the bashing.
>
> I've used Linux, I just don't use it routinely at the moment; I've been
> using Unix professionally for years. I've used Microsoft OSes since
> they first appeared, and find them all to be nothing more than monopoly
> crapware; unacceptable to any free market, but irrevocably forced on the
> consumer.
I hate using Netscape. Therefore I don't. But if I wanted to be like you,
I'd use it exclusively, and whine about it exclusively.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:13:09 -0500
JS PL wrote:
> But you would have no way of knowing that I lie when I say that in approx.
> 11 months my Win2K OS has crashed exactly "once".
> Give me a way or method to crash Win2k, I've yet to find one on my own.
Here is the problem, when you say 11 months, that may mean that you turn
it off every night and boot it every morning. It is unlikely that you
will see a problem. If, as you say, you have seen it crash once, then
this is significant in this configuration, and falls well within the
MTTF study.
> You've never had any experience with Windows 2000 in your life except what
> you've read.
Actually the term "in your life" is at best hyperbole, 2K has only been
released for a short time.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
