Linux-Advocacy Digest #650, Volume #31 Mon, 22 Jan 01 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: And this NZ "Supercomputer" story is great (Ian Davey)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (Mart van deWege)
Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime (Shane Phelps)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Darren Winsper)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: And this NZ "Supercomputer" story is great
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:28:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>kiwiunixman wrote:
>>
>> I'm still waiting for Claire Lynn/steve/flatfish to reply, "there are
>> people/cultures/nations outside the USA?"
>
>People? sure, but they're savages.
That's 100% true. This message is being typed by our American captive on his
strange laptop device that we don't understand. It'll be a short one as the
big pot has almost come to the boil, the point at which we add the
"ingredients". Maybe the laptop as well, for seasoning.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:31:38 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:16:04
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> I think you make a faulty assumption when you presume that IBM started
> >> "the PC industry" as a 'business plan'. Truth is, they did *not*
> >> purposefully release the specs to allow a competitive market on an open
> >> architecture, though that was, indeed the result.
> >
> >I'm more than willing to agree that an accident started the ball rolling
for
> >them. I'm quite sure that, viewing their past business practices, that it
> >was indeed not the plan. They certainly knew that they were benefiting
from
> >that mistake though. The entire PC community was one big advertisement
for
> >their company. "IBM compatable" - "PC compatable". An entire market niche
> >was named for them and their name became synonymous with it.
>
> But you act like IBM didn't resist that with every tool at their
> disposal.
They really couldn't.
> The worst thing in the world, from IBM's limited perspective
> at the time, would be precisely the results which ultimately occurred,
> and the PC become a market, rather than a product. It was everyone ELSE
> that was advertising 'IBM compatible' (or 'IBM clone', if you know what
> the difference is).
I remember the multiple levels of PC compatability...and getting a
manufacturer to openly tell you they were only DOS-Level. (ie: early Tandy)
> No, they did not see this as a *benefit*, not by
> any means! As far as they could understand, letting slip the BIOS code
> and having to publish the architecture (which, being microprocessor
> based, is a schematic for how to build a PC) were the *worst* things
> that could happen. It took them more than a decade, in fact, to
> recognize how they benefitted from it.
>
> Once they did, they started supporting Linux. ;-)
>
> (The preceding statement is knowingly misrepresentative of history.)
Actually, I think the decision to back Linux is a good way for them to jump
on an already moving bandwagon. At least they're bringing something to the
dance (moolah and research). Its' also breathing some new life into the
older mainframes.
>
> ><...>
> >
> >> It was the cloning of the BIOS, not the support of the hardware
> >> architecture, which really set the field for the "PC wars". Those wars
> >> weren't between IBM and anyone or everyone else, but between those who
> >> manufactured *clones* of the IBM PC/XT/AT/etc, and those that
> >
> >Again, their name plastered all over every aspect of the industry.
>
> Oh, please.
>
> In case you weren't aware, this is called "losing trademark protection".
> The term "PC" now means any IBM-compatible personal computer. Suddenly,
> they can no longer prevent some other manufacturer from building
> anything they want and calling it "a PC". Its now the *markets*
> decision whether that's true, not IBM's.
Better than simply being known for mainframes and Selectrics.
>
> >> manufactured PC *compatibles*. The clones won. So you are right, "it
> >> made no difference how good [or how bad] their hardware was." But IBM
> >> lost to "the business plan" as much as anyone did. Their attempt to
> >> re-propriatize the market with the Microchannel architecture seems to
> >> conclusively prove that.
> >
> >A return to their prior business methodology. THAT was a BIG mistake.
>
> Some of us new that even at the time. IBM surely didn't; that seems
> self-evident.
A lot of us just shook our heads in disbelief. I remember getting in quite a
bit of hot water from an IBM rep when I refused to sell them at the
ComputerLand branch I worked with. Marketing idiocy aside, they just weren't
worth the added costs.
>
> >> Starting the PC market was definitely an 'oops' for IBM. One of those
> >> "accidents of history" which tends to make fortunes. Since then, of
> >> course, IBM has learned how to take advantage of such occurrences,
which
> >> is why they are so strong behind Linux.
> >
> >There's hope for them yet.
>
> Indeed; it might be a great story, some day; IBM's journey from
> competitor to monopolist to visionary competitor.
Dollars to doughnuts the cycle will repeat...
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:14:50 +0000
From: Mart van deWege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
T. Max Devlin wrote:
<snip longish discussion>
>>>> MAC addresses are used to send the packet
>
>>>> to the next hop on its route.
>
>>>
>>> Yes, MAC addresses are used to *transmit* the *frame*, containing the
>
>>> packet, to the receiver. Note that whether the receiver is "the next
>
>>> hop on its route" is one of those rules that you should fuck around with
>
>>> lightly. The rule is, "you don't know, you can't know, and it doesn't
>
>>> matter." Because routing doesn't have anything to do with
>
>>> transmissions. So MAC addresses don't have anything to do with packets.
>
>>
>> You really don't have a clue. The above paragragh is gibberish. Please
>
>> read the book you say you have and build a test network to see how it
>
>> really works.
>
>
>
> Listen, lamer. I'm trying to keep my peace and keep my temper, here,
>
> but you're starting to get on my nerves. Don't make me flame you to
>
> crispy critters, butter-cakes. I've been explaining this stuff
>
> professionally for about seven years now, solid. If you didn't quite
>
> get it the first time, don't blame me.
>
>
>
>
>>>> When the packet arrives at a router connected
>
>>>> to the destination host the MAC address is that of the destination host.
>
>>>
>>> No, when the packet is *transmitted* *from* a router connected to a
>
>>> transmission channel shared by the destination host, the destination
>
>>> address of the *frame* bearing that packet is the MAC address of the
>
>>> transceiver related to that host.
>
>>
>> And how does the router get the MAC address? Your terminology shows that
>
>> you really don't have a clue about how IP and ethernet work.
>
>
>
> ARP. The more you come up with this lame-brain stuff, the more it
>
> annoys me that you've got such a snot-nosed attitude.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> It's quite clear you have been nowhere and done nothing regarding networking.
>
>>
>
>> Guffaw indeed.
>
>
>
> Why don't you do a quick search for my name in an RFC archive sometime.
>
> Guffaw.
Mr. Culley,
Ok, I am a bit of a newbie on network technology, but I just
finished Douglas Comer's book, and I'll throw in my 2 cents:
regarding MAC adresses and routing, if it is IP routing you're
talking about, then I concur with Mr. Devlin and say are full of
shit because IP routing is by design *transport independent*,
therefore MAC adresses are *irrelevant* when talking about IP,
except in the context of ARP, as Mr. Devlin rigthly states.
I suggest you read a basic text on Internetworking before you
flame. I may be a newbie, but this so basic that I wonder about
your expertise.
Mart
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:23:05 +1100
Davorin Mestric wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Remeber
> > Uptimes? I went though and showed that even if the W2K comuters had ALL
> > the uptime attributied to ALL the MS OS's (NT, W2K, Win9*) and the
> > average uptime for W2K was calculated based on this inflated number, W2K
> > would STILL have an average up time that was far LESS than the average
> > uptime of Linux!
>
> i don't understand this. how can adding win98 computers in the mix increase
> the average uptime?
Add the MS uptimes together and divide by the number of W2K systems.
9,000 W98 PCs @ 10 day + 1,000 W2K PCs @ 110 days -> 200,000 computer days
divide by 1,000 W2K boxes -> 200 days/W2K box
BTW, those numbers are just to make the figuring easier.
Multiply hypothetical uptimes by your preferred bias factor :-)
------------------------------
From: Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:28:55 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I play games on my computer. I always have. I've never owned a console,
> I think a PC does better graphics than a console.
I have to agree with Pete here. After all, how many consoles do
graphics at 1024*768? And how many can perform anti-aliasing at that
resolution?
> The fact that there is a lack of games on Linux is important to me.
Same here. In fact, I have Windows for the sole reason of games. If
all my games were available for Linux, I'd dump Windows in an instant
(As soon as I got a GeForce2 since Voodoo5 drivers for Linux are crap).
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:38:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:47:05
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> You seem to be proposing that a profit-seeking business would be
> >> interested in not making more money.
> >
> >Microsoft had already screwed over Apple with the Windows thing. Apple is
> >ALSO in the software game and by most accounts, did it better.
>
> I'm not interested in "the software game", just real world markets and
> products. Apple doesn't make many software products; their 'game' is to
> sell computers. Most all software products for Macintosh are third
> party.
What little they produced, and I know this will be roundly disagreed with,
was of superior quality to MS's and showed quite a bit of originality.
>
> >It was in
> >MS's best interest not to support that platform. Apple was a true
competitor
> >to them.
>
> How could they possibly be a "true" competitor, if they didn't compete
> in selling the same kind of product *at all*?
MS's best interests was the PC and compatable market, which they were in the
process of "owning" via exclusive software bundling, being THE universal
standard. (Which it, indeed became regardless of how it actually happened)
If Apple, which had understandably bad blood with MS, were to catch on big
and supplant the PC, MS would be out in the cold.
>
> >They had the potential to actually hurt them. (They also had
> >incentive too.)
>
> They had the potential to break the monopoly, yes. So did many other
> competitive threats. As for incentive, profit seeking firms
> unfortunately *don't* have any incentive for acting competitively in the
> face of a monopolist. They either act anti-competitively, or they
> batten down the hatches and try to ride it out, while actually
> minimizing any exposure caused by development or compatibility. It
> hurts their customers, of course, but there's no way to prevent that.
> Monopolies are already illegal.
But a fact, none-the-less. The big problem is this one was allowed to go on
for too long.
>
> >> No, good sales are not a real good
> >> reason for turning down a market opportunity. As a matter of fact, now
> >> that you brought it up, it was largely anti-competitive efforts to
> >> monopolize the OS which kept the platform lame, by being
'uncompatible',
> >> through Microsoft's passive, if not active, efforts, to change the
> >> platform. And the OS didn't sell well, but was force-bundled.
> >
> >Despite the obvious business faux-paus, they got away with it. It made
B.G.
> >the richest man in the world.
>
> It was illegal. The rest is rather unimportant.
No non-biased, thinking individual would argue the illegality of it.
>
> >If supporting and standardizing multiple platforms were, in Microsoft's
> >views, advantageous, they would have done it.
>
> Who cares about Microsoft's view? We're consumers, not producers. Stop
> being brain-dead. That's the trouble with you Randites; you seem to
> think that its OK to get ripped off, as long as you get the chance to
> rip someone else off some time.
You are so misunderstanding what is being said. I'm merely pointing out why
multi-platform support, (which this thread had veered into), was/is so poor
as to be non-existent. I most certainly DON'T think any of this is OK and it
upsets me as much as most of us who jumped on the Linux/BSD bandwagon.
>
> >Had they started with a technological edge and a decent product, they
> >probably could have benifitted by that approach. Neither of those were
the
> >case.
>
> So its rather hypothetical and even unlikely, now that you mention it,
> that they "could have benefitted by that approach".
If they had concentrated on developing a superior product that had appeal
across multiple platforms, they most certainly would have benefited. Truth
be told (My truth anyway-Your milage may vary), they just weren't/aren't
capable of doing it.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> >> That just demonstrates a pattern of total negligence.
> >> >
> >> >Exactly. Good word for it!
> >>
> >> Criminal negligence, in this case.
> >
> >That they're soon to pay for either in a legal sense or market sense.
>
> Both, of course.
One can hope. Buying political support has a lot of sway...
>
> [...]
> >> Just to clear things up, it was the 'losing bet' that made the bullshit
> >> most pure. You're presupposing that the bet would have been lost,
based
> >> on the fact that it wasn't taken, it seems. There was no 'concentrate
> >> support', just 'get locked in to a monopoly'. There's no reason or
need
> >> to second-guess why or how anybody got locked in to a monopoly. You
> >> can't blame the victim for the crime. Monopolizing is illegal.
> >
> >I'm saying that the bet wasn't taken because they were too short-sighted
to
> >see what would eventually come. Profits tend to make any MBA myopic.
>
> I see. I've tripped over my fanaticism again, haven't I? ;-)
I'm just as idealistic about things as you are. I just temper it, in this
case, with the proven fact that money makes "suit-types" stupid.
>
> [...]
> >> The point Jedi is trying to make is that we know from Microsoft's own
> >> internal documents that they don't work that way. They didn't
> >> 'concentrate' on the PC development,
> >
> >They concentrated on supporting platforms that they and they alone could
> >dominate.
>
> This is illegal. They're required by the laws of economics to support
> the platforms their customers want them to support, and that alone.
> Should they 'successfully' resist this, they are no longer in business,
> they are now criminal monopolists. As I said, they didn't 'concentrate'
> on PC development; they excluded Macintosh development for
> anti-competitive (illegal) reasons.
Yes, Max...It is illegal and unethical. As I've said repeatedly, the overall
worth of their product had nothing to do with any of this - Their actions
did.
>
> >> they excluded Macintosh
> >> development. Because it actually threatens their Windows OS monopoly.
> >
> >I've said as much above. Actually, if Apple had a good CEO back then,
they
> >could have had a much larger impact.
>
> More pointless and somewhat ludicrous second-guessing. Regardless of
> any putative justification, your statement is a fabrication. Apple had
> a good CEO, and did have a large impact. To say "if something were
> different, then something might be different" is just pointless
> posturing.
They had a CEO that turned two divisions into direct competitors. A lot of
bad blood internally in that company. It's no surprise he was ousted. Jobs
was a visionary and did some right things, he just wasn't up for the "big
game".
Who's second guessing and fabricating, the 1980's Apple was and is a
brilliant example of how NOT to run a tech company. Jobs is a visionary, not
a business man.
>
> >> Its not much of a threat, since they can make Office for Mac suck as
> >> much as they want should people start defecting from Windows, even at
> >> the expense of buying a new computer, because it sucked too much. And
> >> it has the added bonus as a facade for claims of 'support for
> >> interoperability'. Kind of laughable, given the current discussion,
> >> though.
> >
> >Token gestures are a bit laughable. MS ports to that platform, and I get
> >this second hand since i'm not a Mac person, were very laughable.
>
> I didn't find them at all humorous, actually. They aren't really
> 'token' gestures, I don't think. They might be presented as if they
> were, but they're more probably carefully planned strategic moves to
> prevent competition from threatening their monopoly.
>
Perhaps they thought they could dominate the Apple market in the same way
they dominated the PC one. They couldn't do this, IMO, because they didn't
start on the ground floor and there were already credible applications for
the platform that were superior to anything they could come up with. If they
can't compete with them and can't buy them out...What do they do?
> >> Microsoft's intent in developing and maintaining distinct file formats,
> >> as much as possible, is anti-competitive; it is not an efficiency of
the
> >> market, as you seem to presume by putting it this way.
> >
> >A market with no discernable competition is pretty damned efficient , for
> >the monopolists anyway.
>
> Which makes it entirely and completely inefficient as a market. You are
> again forgetting that monopolists don't inhabit markets or dominate
> markets; they prevent markets.
Innefficient only from the market's standpoint. Not theirs. How can you call
a percentage of nearly all bundled PC sales being delivered to your front
door inefficient. It's not like, until recently anyway, they had to do much
in the way of innovatation. Just keep the lawyers, reps, and government
officials fed and watered.
>
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> >> That's not a technological argument.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's not even an engineering argument.
> >> >
> >> >It's a market dominance argument.
> >>
> >> Well, technically there is a rather important difference between market
> >> dominance and monopolization, you see. And, yes, this contradiction of
> >> technological justification for development which decreases the value
of
> >> the product to the consumer is a tell-tale, in fact.
> >
> >The net result is the same regardless of what words you use to describe
it.
>
> Your interpretation of the result is incorrect, regardless of how many
> similar words might also describe a correct interpretation.
How have they not dominated the market then, Max?
>
> >A monopolist dominates the market by virtue of exclusive control over it.
> >They don't have to concentrate on innovations and actually make their
> >products better. This is their weak point too as most monopolies become
big,
> >bloated and inflexable.
>
> This supposition is unsupported by any facts, I'm afraid. It is the
> government, not becoming "big, bloated, and inflexible", that eventually
> overcomes monopolists.
Does the government have anything to do with Microsoft's slipping market
share in the web server market? Why do you think they're now releasing, not
only 2000, but Whistler? They're running a bit scared right now. They know
there are competitors out there ready and willing to devour them.
Government intervention helps, but folks eventually realize that better
options exist. The government didn't weight in at all in my decision to
scrap NT from my present and future networking - a superior product did. If
Linux distros only keep improving, (I just installed Mandrake 7.2...They're
getting closer!), Microsoft will have yet another front to defend. Their
outrageous pricing and that silly subscription based liscense is doing
nothing more than setting themseves up for the coup-de-gras.
Of course, a nice jucy court verdict would really help too :)
>
> >They lose the ability to innovate. The situation is
> >a lot like trench warfare in WWI. They fortify their position so that
> >crossing no-man's land becomes so dangerous that they're in no danger of
> >being extricated. Eventually, someone like the British come along with
this
> >thing called a "tank" and extricate them...quickly.
>
> You assume their fortifications will ultimately be insufficient for the
> very purpose they were erected. That seems a tad naive.
They're losing market share in the web market to a free product. Said free
product is improving in useability and functionality with each new release.
One of these days, its' going to appeal to Joe User. (As previously
mentioned, I popped $29.00 on Mandrake 7.2 while I was a Staples a few days
ago. It isn't there yet, but, it's a damned sight better than it used to be.
Fewer rough edges, better hardware detction, KDE2,...Not bad at all!) Plus,
thanks to the Government, lawyers all over the country are smelling
Microsoft's blood in the water. The ramparts aren't really that secure
anymore.
> You don't need
> the ability to innovate unless you are trying to *compete*. To
> monopolize, you just need "churn", not innovation, as Microsoft so well
> illustrates.
Sad, but true. Once control a market, you can do what you please and let the
green roll in...for a while. What goes around comes around.
> So someone coming along and 'innovating' does not have the
> result you presume, either in theory or in fact. Your theory is trivial
> to refute, as all Objectivist bullshit is. Objectivism is little more
> than the purposeful abrogation of the reasonable in glorious celebration
> of the rational.
Just watch it happen...
It'll be glorious!
We'll hang 'em from the rafters!
Viva la resistance!
<music type="triumphant orchestral">
(Fist raised in salute)
</music type="fades out">
I'm outa here! Gotta write some code!
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:01:42 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oh, please, quite with the histrionics, Charlie. You friggen YELL too
> much!
>
> Erik 'deny it ever happened'; that's not his style. He denies what "it"
> is.
"I did not have...cognative relations with this subject,...MS Windows"*
<snippage of discussion on EF's credibility>
*Sorry,, I couldn't resist that. It just struck me as Clintonesque.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
