Linux-Advocacy Digest #678, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Martin Eden)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice ("Block Iron &
Supply Co - CIS")
Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (John Travis)
Re: Poor Linux (John Travis)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Shane Phelps)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: MS opens up on Whistler copy protection ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:09:06 GMT
"." wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Martin Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >> Debian is BSD based
>
> > Where on earth did you come up with that?
>
> > BSD is a family of Operating Systems which does not include Debian. I am
> > sure all the people who have worked so hard to develop Debian from
> > scratch will enjoy hearing that their product is a knockoff of something
> > else.
>
> They know it is, idiot.
You might want to tell them that.
Theres a reason that people who know what theyre
> doing always say "wow, debian is so close to FreeBSD I can almost smell it!"
I said so myself a few weeks ago. So what?
>
> That reason is because its PURPOSELY close, dipshit.
And how does that equate to "based on", precisely?
>
> > It's not "based on" BSD any more than Solaris is "based on" BSD.
>
> You meant SunOS.
No, I meant Solaris.
>And dont forget /usr/ucb, you diminutive yogurthead.
The ad-hom. The last desperate attempt at winning an argument which is
already lost. heh.
--
"Think outside the box."
-John Travis
http://www.freebsd.org/
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 24 Jan 2001 04:24:35 +1100
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >Just one.
>>
>> Issue 2/2001, pages 120-121. A test of "Microsoft WorksSuite 2001".
>Ok, I'll give you that one.
How gracious of you :)
>Now, (I know you can't answer this, but just think about it), how many
>articles/100 about Microsoft are favorable, or at least non-bashing?
Those are two very different questions. The answer to the "non-bashing"
one, when referring to articles, is "100". The answer to "favourable"
depends very much on your definition of favourable. I'd say that about 50%
of MS-related articles have a more or less positive overall tenor.
>I bet it would be significantly lower, if not zero, than any of the
>mainstream tech magazines (PC World & Magazine, Wired, etc).
And you consider this to be a *fault* of *c't*? Oh my, oh my. Welcome
to the real world. I'd recommend you learn some German, and then actually
read what you like to generalize about. Or alternatively, learn Dutch
and read the Dutch issue.
>Basically, if c't doesn't have an agenda to put down Microsoft at
>almost every attempt, they sure due a good job of making it look
>like that.
You mean when they point out valid problems with software, regardless of
who made the software, that is a bad thing to do?
>Here's a more relevant question, since this whole debate is
>really about the validity and indepence of c't's benchmarks:
>Are there any benchmarks showing Microsoft leading anything?
c't 16/99, p134: Testing Fast Ethernet adapters under NT, Win98, OS/2 and
Linux. NT fastest with 15 out of 25 cards tested, Linux with 7, and 3 dead
heats. Of course, when it came to delivering data via SMB, both got their
butt kicked by OS/2 :)
c't 18/99, p154: Compiling SpecInt with both egcs and MSC v6.0. Results:
18.9 vs 20.0, 20.7 vs 21.6 and 18.1 vs 21.2 on, respectively, PIII/600,
Athlon/600,21164A/500.
I am sure similar articles could be found for 2000, but my c't DVD only covers
1990 to 1999, and I am not going to go through the dead tree versions looking
for benchmarks for you.
>ZDNet and several other benchmarkers show Microsoft leading
>quite often. Maybe not the majority of the time, but at
>least SOME of the time. It's my speculation that very few,
>if any of c't's benchmarks show Microsoft in the lead or
>winning.
Then maybe, dear Chad, you should stop speculating, and either educate
yourself about the publication you are dissing, or stop dissing it based
on your "speculation".
In fact, even the c't 13/99, page 186 benchmark about Web serving under
Linux and NT (the one often cited by Linux advocates, and often dismissed
by you) states strongly and unambiguously that Linux performance was miserable
compared to NT performance when the job was to serve a single static 4kB page
over two Fast Ethernet cards. Yes, c't then mentioned that this was not
really a real-life situation, but they did print the performance graphs
for this scenario just like for the others.
Bernie
--
A child miseducated is a child lost
John F. Kennedy
US President 1961-63
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 24 Jan 2001 04:35:37 +1100
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Which has never been a problem except in lab tests. The 4 million file bug
>was discovered by a guy who wrote a program to test it. It's never been
>a problem in the Real World. Anyhow, it was fixed in NT 4 SP4 and isn't
>an issue AT ALL now.
BTW, Chad --- does the current version of NTFS still limit itself to
journalling metadata, or does it by now journal data as well?
>I've never seen that, well not after NT4 SP3 anyhow. It's certainly not
>a problem on Win2K. Have you ever shut down a Linux box with ext2fs
>incorrectly? God help you. You have a 90% chance of completely hosing
>your fs. Not much of an enterprise file system IYAM.
This number is so utterly and ridiculously stupidly made up that I really
shouldn't comment on it. But what the heck...
It's summer here in down under. And suddenly, my old work horse, the dual
P150, started crashing randomly. Once, I thought "oh well, maybe I shouldn't
run a patched-to-hell 2.4pre kernel on it". The second time, I was getting
suspicious. The third time, I got out the screwdriver. Lo and behold, one
of the CPU fans had reached the end of its life, and was not running properly.
Unfortunately, some bright mind had glued it to the CPU, so I had to run
for a few more days (until the next swap meet, where I could get a P150) like
that, and had a couple more crashes. And the crashes occurred, for obvious
reasons, when the disks were most active (and thus power supply to the board
was most noisy).
No hosed filesystems. No lost files. Just a few rather annoying reboots.
Given your odds for "completely hosing your filesystem", I would be lucky to
the tune of 1 in a 100,000.
I don't think so!
Bernie
P.S.: BTW, I consider this one of the most relevant indicators of an OS's
stability... When it crashes on you, do you go for the screwdriver
or for the installation CD?
--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety
Isaac Asimov
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:54:52 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a6c2180$0$21338$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It took you a full minute?
>
> takes half that long with windows and no reboot is required for W2K (you
> xposted to a NT advocacy forum, not win9x)
There ISN'T 9x advocary group.
& I'm thankful for that.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:55:23 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > It took you a full minute?
> >
> > takes half that long with windows and no reboot is required for W2K (you
> > xposted to a NT advocacy forum, not win9x)
> >
> > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I recently opened an new account with earthlink. After placing the
> > > order, I waited for an hour, edited a kppp script, logged in and was
up
> > > and running within 1 minute. Today I got the package earthlink sends
out
> > > to all new users. It includes a CD and "Quick Start" guide. The last
> > > line of the instructions for 95/98/Me is to reboot the computer.
> > >
> > > So much for MS operating systems being easier to use than Linux.
> > > --
> > > Russ
> > > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > > Not powered by ActiveX
>
> Real kicker, that I forgot to mention, is that NT and W2K aren't even
> supported. If you call them they have a help option for NT, but not W2k.
> It gets lumped into "other Operating systems, estimated time of wait is
> 63 minutes". I only had to hold for 21 minutes for NT.
Identical to how you do it in 9x.
What is your point?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:25:54 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:24:34 GMT, "Tom Wilson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd prefer the tee-shirt. I couldn't cram another card into my wallet if I
>tried.
Back in the mid 1990's I went to PC-Expo at the Javits Center in NYC
and attended the Win95 dog and pony show exhibit. At the end they
raffled off a Microsoft mouse and I won. I had to go up in front of
everyone and accept the certificate and a MS Tee Shirt which was
embarrassing considering that I was wearing a Team-Os/2 Tee Shirt.
Now I know what it feels to be General Custer :)
FWIW the mouse came about a week later, included all the adapters for
the various different types of ports and the software. I also got a
call from MS asking me if everything arrived properly.
I also won an IBM mouse that day at the OS/2 exhibition (it was my
lucky day) and when that one arrived it was the el-cheapo model with a
PS/2 port connector which at the time was not the standard (9 pin
serial port was more typical). When I called them up they tried to
sell me an adapter for about as much money as the entire mouse was
worth.
Classic case of how MS does things right and IBM screws itself every
time.
BTW this has nothing to do with the topic. I just felt like
reminiscing.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Block Iron & Supply Co - CIS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:21:11 -0600
"Jeff Silverman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94gqn6$rmd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi. I am an experienced Linux/UNIX sysadmin and I am getting ready to
teach a class on Linux for
> the Communications Workers of America and WashTech. I am soliciting
comments and suggestions from
> people in the Linux community about what I ought to teach.
>
> The students will be adults with some computer experience, most likely in
MacOS or MS-Windows.
>
> I assume that I have to teach them the basics:
>
> 1) How to login and how to logout
> 2) File manipulation commands: cp, mv, rm, rmdir, ln, cat, more, find,
grep, sort, uniq. Also I/O
> redirection and pipelines
> 3) An editor. vi? emacs? Something else? No flame wars, please.
> 4) Minimal sysadmin stuff - assuming they are going to run their own
machines. Is that a reasonable
> assumption? Account management. Minimal security issues. Networking
(that's a mouthful).
>
> It gets more complicated... GUIs. Should I teach KDE? gnome? Motif?
>
> How about shell scripting?
>
>
> What do beginning users need to know?
All beginners need to know that there is more than one way to do something.
The last group of people we sent to AutoCAD classes were only shown how to
use the mouse to draw and zoom. No keyboard shortcuts or commands, no info
on setting up a work area, just zoom with a scroll mouse and point and click
to draw. These people now think they have to zoom in and out to draw a door
opening.
Oopps I'm ranting...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:34:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK) wrote:
> In article <93iq7c$5sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010110S0006
>
> Very poorly written piece. From a Corporate IT/MS perspective, it
talks
> as if Linux has been _technologically_ playing catch up to W* and is
> just getting there.
>
> Linux was beyond that point several years ago.
It just shows that windows has such a high level of mindshare in the
marketplace and such a massive marketing machine that an operating
system has to have technical superiority, something on which to base
widespread evangalism among developers and end users, and a comparable
or lower price point in order to compete.
Linux has had all three for several years but it's only recently that
nontechnical people like the writer of that article are coming to
realize it.
Salvador ( who is 10 minutes away from pitching his boss on letting him
have a linux partition on his work desktop to go with his 4 ( soon 8 )
linux servers. :)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:27:15 GMT
And Martin Eden spoke unto the masses...
<snipped embers>
:--
:"Think outside the box."
: -John Travis
:http://www.freebsd.org/
:http://plan9.bell-labs.com/
LOL! You can have it :-). Everyone knows it wasn't really "mine" so to speak,
I just like to use it when someone is obviously brainwashed and not thinking for
themselves. Hmm...now to slap on Be!
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
2.4.1-pre9|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .96 drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:32:41 GMT
And Martin Eden spoke unto the masses...
:Think outside the box.
:http://www.freebsd.org/
:http://plan9.bell-labs.com/
<sig fixed>
Quick question. How do you like Plan9 so far?
jt (forever curious about that which I have not tried :)
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
2.4.1-pre9|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .96 drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:04:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:08:52 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>nuxx wrote:
>
>> W2K Advanced Server is an excellent choice for this application.
>
>it might be made to work, but they could have saved themselves
>a ton of money, and gotten better performance, reliability, and
>remote management capability by using Unix.
What streaming server would they use?
Win2k appears to win here -- although part of it might be that
specific audio server software may not be needed for Apache,
or something like Netscape's webserver software (which runs on
a number of platforms), whose name I forget offhand.
Can anyone clarify this?
>
>jjs
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:09h:35m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:18:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:07:39 +1300
<94jafv$j3o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>using such a poofter OS as WIndows, fuck, what a waste of time! use
>something with a bit of bite like a SUN Starfire or IBM s/900z for
>christsake!
PC doesn't stand for "pathetic compatible" anymore. :-) A 1Ghz
Athlon sitting on a user's desktop isn't a mere toy, although it's
not going to serve gigabytes of information per hour, either.
That said...I'm not sure "Windows" stands for "reliable software", yet. :-)
And that 1Ghz Athlon would probably be needed just to handle
"innovative" ideas such as scrolling menus, vanishing menus,
cutesy icons, "peek-a-boo" button bars, Start buttons,
and remote graphics display. (Gee, X11 can handle that now...)
And they *still* can't reliably kill a process. I tried to invoke, then
kill, Notepad on a very large text file (this on NT4); it took
several *minutes* to finally vanish. I doubt Win2k has improved
noticeably in this regard.
Windows might have the apps, but it's not there yet. However,
it does appear to have streaming servers.
>
>kiwiunixman
>
>"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3a6cd52a$0$45770$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> While little MiG tries to impress with some brochure sites...
>>
>> MediaWave is deploying over 3,100 windows 2000 advanced servers all over
>> europe to handle multimillions of simultaneous audio and video streams.
>>
>> Talk about demanding! Is there even a streaming server available for
>linux?
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/Jan01/01-22MediaWavePR.asp
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:10h:37m actually running Linux.
Are you still here?
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:39:58 +1100
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Lose98 can NOT stay up 216 hours continously, especially not IN USE 24x7.
>
> Four of our NT4 boxes are running SQL server 7 and run continuously 24x7 and
> sometimes running near 90-100% for days on end. We replaced a hotswap hard
> drive during that time - THAT is how reliable we've found NT4 to be. How
> long? Nearly 8 months now - since these are not public facing servers we do
> not need to apply security patches so we have no planned reboots. We haven't
> upgraded these four boxes because they have been running non-stop for 8
> months now (and the reason for that reboot was updating SCSI BIOS and
> drivers).
>
Congratulations. You're reporting *far* better NT stability than the figures
Microsoft is now using in it's advertising
> Our two W2K boxes that have never been rebooted since Feb 20th and, although
> I'm sure it's coincidence, not even had a hard drive pop yet. We haven't
> applied SP1 or security patches cause these are internal servers.
>
... and much better figures for W2K as well (though not proportionately
as good
as your NT 4 figures)
> Our three external facing W2K boxes we reboot when a security patch requires
> it so looking at their "uptime" report in netcraft would make them appear
> unreliable when in fact they stay up without fail. Period. Our solaris box
> we've retired and I can say not soon enough, we were tired of it crashing
> all the time. The only copies of linux in this shop are those tucked safely
> away in VMWare virtual machines and most definately not attached to the net.
> Thankfully when linux pukes we can just recycle the virtual machine.
.. so what are you doing right with NT and wrong with Solaris?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:27:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:06:08 GMT
<kdgb6.12895$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS PL wrote:
>>
>> > Linux is hardly a threat to any market.
>>
>> Linux is a threat to the desktop market. (Notice that I said "threat", not
>> "victor".)
>
>A sad attempt is it, then.
>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2675184,00.html
>
>Linux has less than one percent in the Desktop market (See Erik's browser
>statistics from a debate on this very topic a few months ago).
You mean 0.3%. Please give more precise statistics (and cites
would be nice, too :-) ).
[The above is remembered from a discussion some weeks or months back.
I believe you were the one that came up with this figure; if so,
a cite should not be horribly difficult -- hopefully, I've not
misremembered the figure.]
>The only OS it's a threat to would be OS/2 or Solaris in that market,
>I suppose.
>
>Do you have any facts to back up your claim it's a threat in the desktop
>market? Of course not.
Seconded. However, I for one would think NT isn't much of a
threat to the server market, myself. :-)
>
>> Meanwhile, Linux is not just a threat, but is actually taking over
>> the server, embedded device, and supercomputing markets. Sad to say,
>> but lots of (relatively) respectable vendors are going to die
>> before Microsoft does.
>
>Facts? Of course not. Linux has what, 20-ish % in the server market,
>and that's even with the liberal estimates.
Very liberal. I can see Apache enjoying a monopoly, but Linux?
Hard to say.
>Not much of a threat to anyone but the Unix vendors that it's taking over.
>It hasn't touched Windows' market yet.
It won't, either. Unless Microsoft does something egregriously stupid.
Linux simply can't do ASP at the moment. (Of course, I'm not sure
how many people are using ASP, either. Solaris can do ASP because
a third party wrote and/or colicensed from Microsoft a Visual
Basic interpreter, however, it can't address COM.)
[snip for brevity and lack of facts]
>You've never used Win2K, have you? You'd be hard pressed to crash it.
I've already crashed one program on Win2k by installing ATI drivers.
However, it didn't take down the system. It's the only crash I'll
swear to at this time (I've not switched over to Win2k yet on my
development machine).
>
>The only time I've had to reboot win2K is for a software upgrade, and
>because I had some faulty nVidia display drivers.
>
>-Chad
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:10h:53m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:29:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:08:14 GMT
<ifgb6.12896$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > Oh yeah, and by the way, what are they running on the back end that
>> > does all the searching?
>> >
>> > Yeah, that's right. It used to be NT, I think it's partly NT/Solaris
>> > now. They might be migrating all to Solaris, but maybe not after
>> > the ebay debacle.
>>
>> Garsh. I almost find myself tempted to ask why they're migrating to Solaris
>> rather than to W2K.
>
>Sun probably paid them a bunch to do it.
I could see Sun giving them a discount to an aggressive purchasing
agent on a large piece of hardware, or a large farm of smaller
hardware, but I doubt they would pay Yahoo unless they expected
advertising revenue.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:11h:00m actually running Linux.
I was asleep at the switch the rest of the time.
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS opens up on Whistler copy protection
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:29:37 GMT
> But Microsoft really, really wants people not to hate product activation and
> - strange but at least at the moment true - is trying to draw a sharp
> distiction between activation and registration. And, by the way, registration
> will not be compulsory, according to Nieman.
Of course not. Not in the first iteration. They'll do it gradually, just like
everything else.
By then it will be too late. Just like everything else.
Thank god I found Linux when I did. With any luck I'll be able to rid my
systems of MS entirely by then.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:33:09 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And they *still* can't reliably kill a process. I tried to invoke, then
> kill, Notepad on a very large text file (this on NT4); it took
> several *minutes* to finally vanish. I doubt Win2k has improved
> noticeably in this regard.
Then get kill.exe or pskill.exe
kill -f has yet to fail me.
kill -f lsass.exe has interesting results when running as admin, btw.
Don't try it at home.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:37:53 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:06:08 GMT
> <kdgb6.12895$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> JS PL wrote:
> >>
> >> > Linux is hardly a threat to any market.
> >>
> >> Linux is a threat to the desktop market. (Notice that I said "threat",
not
> >> "victor".)
> >
> >A sad attempt is it, then.
> >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2675184,00.html
> >
> >Linux has less than one percent in the Desktop market (See Erik's browser
> >statistics from a debate on this very topic a few months ago).
>
> You mean 0.3%. Please give more precise statistics (and cites
> would be nice, too :-) ).
>
> [The above is remembered from a discussion some weeks or months back.
> I believe you were the one that came up with this figure; if so,
> a cite should not be horribly difficult -- hopefully, I've not
> misremembered the figure.]
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2000/October/os.html
> >> Meanwhile, Linux is not just a threat, but is actually taking over
> >> the server, embedded device, and supercomputing markets. Sad to say,
> >> but lots of (relatively) respectable vendors are going to die
> >> before Microsoft does.
> >
> >Facts? Of course not. Linux has what, 20-ish % in the server market,
> >and that's even with the liberal estimates.
>
> Very liberal. I can see Apache enjoying a monopoly, but Linux?
> Hard to say.
>
> >Not much of a threat to anyone but the Unix vendors that it's taking
over.
> >It hasn't touched Windows' market yet.
>
> It won't, either. Unless Microsoft does something egregriously stupid.
> Linux simply can't do ASP at the moment. (Of course, I'm not sure
> how many people are using ASP, either. Solaris can do ASP because
> a third party wrote and/or colicensed from Microsoft a Visual
> Basic interpreter, however, it can't address COM.)
What advantage does ASP has outside of Windows over other languages?
On Windows, I can understand why it's the language of choice.
But outside of Windows? Why? (Truly interested in knowning, btw)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
