Linux-Advocacy Digest #699, Volume #31 Wed, 24 Jan 01 08:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Shane Phelps)
Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: The Server Saga (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (Roy.Culley)
Re: Does Code Decay (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (mlw)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Crappy CDROM? (mlw)
Re: Crappy CDROM? (mlw)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Matthias Warkus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:24:08 +0000
> I thought about that...that's why I specify NAMED PIPES appearing in
> the filesystem....each process has just ONE "input" pipe...any process
> sending a message to it starts with a preamble.
>
> a) identity of calling process
> b) number of bytes of data in (C)
> c) "message" plus ctrl-W (ETB = End Transmission Block)
>
> As long as (a) + (b) + (c) are all put into one write(2) call, then
> there shouldn't be any problems with collisions, as any write(2) to
> an fd is supposed to be completed before anothere write(2) to the same fd.
That could work, although You'd have to do a lot of opening and closing
of pipes all the time, which is slow. I still think that for an
essentially message based system, message passing would be more
workable.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:26:49 +1100
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
[ snip
> > >
> > > Windows 2000 is the same. It's stable,
> >
> > I would not call a 120 day up time stable.
>
> If the machine has physically been only turned on for 120 days I'd call that
> 100 % stable. dummy.
>
How quickly they "forget"
The 120 day figure comes from a report used in MS advertising for W2K.
http://www.nstl.com/html/windows_2000_reliability.html
To "refresh" your "memory":
the gist of the ad is that W2K last 4x longer and 13x longer that
Windows 98 between
"unplanned shutdowns" - ie crashes.
The ad is even reported to features the BSOD.
The thread(s) ran for almost a week on both comna and cola
Does that ring any bells now?
BTW, your alter ego posted in the longest-running thread
> <snip>> > and it has a huge application base, more so than
> > > any other OS in its class.
> >
> > The ones that work, of course.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:33:11 -0600
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> In another thread Ayende Rahien reminded me where to find the Hot 100
> (thanks!), so I've pulled the list and done a current analysis.
> ...
> Solaris - 35 sites (30 with stats), avg 60.18, max 334.76, min 6.26
> Linux - 19 sites (14 with stats), avg 36.73, max 89.39, min 4.94
> W2K - 11 sites, avg 19.82, max 45.05, min 3.84
Hey, Chad -- has this message come across your server yet? You get most
of our posts quite promptly. Wonder why this one is different? You know
we're all eagerly awaiting your reply.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:40:36 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
> This is yet another factless post from Bobby D. Bryant.
I notice that your eagerness for facts hasn't led you to respond to my fact-filled
post about Hot 100 uptimes.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:41:38 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
> Two months is on the low end of the norm for Win2K. The NTSL studdy showed
> that the average Win2K uptime for a desktop user, even is 7200 hours or so.
> For servers, it's much higher.
>
> You haven't used Win2K have you? Its was more solid than Linux.
Again, I invite you to read and respond to my post analyzing the uptimes of the
Hot 100.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:49:15 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> <rant>
>> I don't really care whether Linux is popular among the computer
>> illiterate, [...]
>> </rant>
> So screw Joe Public, huh?
Yes, basically.
> Don't they deserve better?
No.
I don't see why I should feel any obligation to spend my time helping
out brats who are too lazy to bother to learn, and too cheap to pay
for support.
Open Source means that if anybody wants an author's work, they may
have it. It does not mean that the author is responsible for
supporting tedious and bothersome individuals who somehow think having
a piece of code gives them a right to whine about it. You are already
given the means to fix anything you dislike. You may choose to ignore
those means, but I find whining about it rather pathetic.
And if I wanted to do good, I'd donate my time or money to the Red
Cross or some similar organisation.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: 24 Jan 2001 11:53:36 GMT
Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I started my IT career in a unix environment, and still find it the
: best environment to work in (I won't take non-unix contracts, despite
: the financial temptations). The only reason I even need professional
: office apps is because my clients often use MS Office to do their
: documentation, and agencies always want resumes 'in MS Word format'.
DocBook can be turned into HTML (and I believe RTF) quite easily, so
that's what I recommend for most kinds of documentation.
As for resumes in "MS Word format," I'm guessing that they wouldn't
know the difference if you used StarOffice instead.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:44:00 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 23 Jan
> 2001 01:43:32 +0100;
>>In article <94i3pb$d6l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>> Ummm...how exactly is NAT an overhead? How exactly do you scale your firewall
>>> performance appropriately?
>>
>>Do I really have to explain this? With NAT, whether it is one to one NAT or
>>hide NAT the firewal has to keep a table of which internal addresses belong
>>to which connection. This takes cpu cycles believe it or not. The speed of
>>the line is not the only criteria for deciding how powerful a system you
>>need. Number of rules, NAT, routing table size all affect perfomance.
>
> You were doing rather well until that last line, Roy. Don't confuse
> routing tables with NAT tables; they aren't at all related. Likewise,
> the firewall rules. These are three separate functions, NAT, router,
> and firewall. They don't benefit from being munged together, and you're
> going to find it easier to work with them, swear to god, if you keep
> that in mind.
Where in what I wrote am I confusing NAT and routing? A firewall which
forwards packets between different networks is a router and this
routing has a perfomance impact. If said firewall does NAT then that
also affects performance. Of course NAT often requires extra routes
on the firewall and possibly static arp entries as well.
<snip>
> I'll bow out
> gracefully, then. You go about your business, son.
At last a sensible remark from you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy.Culley)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:56:56 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 23 Jan
> 2001 02:18:19 +0100;
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 22 Jan
>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 22 Jan
>>>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan
>>>>>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a convention, not a rule of routing or the IP protocol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is not a convention. Look up the appropriate RFC's. The private IP
>>>>>>address ranges should never appear on the Internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what we call a convention. Notice the "should". Where as,
>>>>> 0.0.0.0, and 127.0.0.1 *cannot* appear on the Internet. Get it?
>>>>
>>>>I 'should' have said must. Now tell me why '0.0.0.0, and 127.0.0.1
>>>>*cannot* appear on the Internet'? It just takes a misconfigured router.
>>>>There is nothing magical about these addresses. You really are clueless.
>>
>>I concede this point as I only recall seeing these addresses on local
>>subnets (nmap can generate packets with these addresses).
>
> Well, see, here's where we get to learn something, Roy. Those weren't
> on your "local subnets". They were on your local host. None of those
> packets ever got out the interface and onto the Ethernet. TCP/IP stacks
> won't do that, by design.
>
> But it is instructive in the dark arts of networkology that you'll see
> them in nmap all the same. ;-)
You obviously have no practical experience at all:
Here I run nmap telling it to spoof the source address:
nmap -S 127.0.0.1 192.169.5.5
Starting nmap V. 2.53 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( www.insecure.org/nmap/
) WARNING: If -S is being used to fake your source address, you may
also have to use -e <iface> and -P0 . If you are using it to specify
your real source address, you can ignore this warning. WARNING: -S
will not affect the source address used in a connect() scan. Use -sS
or another raw scan if you want to use the specified source address
for the port scanning stage of nmap
This is what tcpdump showed on the subnet:
tcpdump -n -i eth0 host 192.168.5.5
User level filter, protocol ALL, datagram packet socket
tcpdump: listening on eth0
12:54:23.326627 > 127.0.0.1 > 192.168.5.5: icmp: echo request
12:54:23.334712 > 127.0.0.1.33992 > 192.168.5.5.www: . 2142240771:2142240771(0) ack
2456394143 win 4096
What were you saying again?
<snip>
I'm fed up arguing with you. You aren't worth the time or the
effort. I have tried to help you but you are beyond help.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:00:49 GMT
"mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What linux suffers from, if anything, is more like cancer, which is out
> of control growth,
Really?
> i.e. somebody rewrites the c-standard library just for kicks
Somebody might do that, but it won't get into any serious
distribution. Libc has had, I suppose, two transitions that can be
considered major, from the "linux" libc, to glibc, and glibc 1 to
glibc 2. That's going back quite a few years, you know.
> or firewalling & filtering gets transformed from
> ipfwadm
The 2.0 series, dating back to 1996
> through ipchains to
The 2.2 series, first released January, 1999.
> iptables in quick succession.
The 2.4 kernel, just released
So we have three and a half, and then two years interval between
changes. And guess what, changes have been backwards compatible, so
that while we're getting a vastly more powerful model every iteration,
your old scripts will continue to work.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 06:16:11 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:14:09 +0800, nuxx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> So you need to get extra stuff just so you can kill apps. Yeah, really
> >> great. And how long has UNIX been shipping with the kill command?
> >>
> >It's on the W2k CD under support tools. Anyone who admins W2k should
know
> >this.
>
> This is the Moron's Server OS. Why should they "need to know"?
> Applets this tiny should just plain be installed by default.
> Or, at the very least there should be a "admin server from
> telnet session" option.
Perhaps because we never need the kill command - Just pick the process from
the task manager and bingo it's gone...
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 06:18:07 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Oh, WOW!
> > >
> > > Guess what? Computer use in the WORLD is EXPANDING, so people are
> > > installing NEW servers. Some of them are Win2k, most are not. For
these
> > > 3100 win2K servers installed by these people, there have probably been
> > > 10,000 others (or fewer of comparable power) installed else where.
> >
> > "probably?" - I present facts and you come back with "probably" - whew,
what
> > a take down!
>
> That is a useless fact when presented on its own with no comparisons.
No, it's not. 3100 servers added is a simple fact.
>
> > >
> > > Oh, and Media Wave isn't a Brochure site.
> >
> > get the players right at least eh? Obviously mediawave isn't a brochure
> > site - but the one mig offered is.
>
>
> What the fack do you call a brocure site? Oh, don't bother replying
> because...
Brochure site is one that doesn't do much other than look pretty
(sometimes).
>
> > >
> > > You are a waste of space.
> > >
> > > *PLONK*
> >
> > yea.. right...
>
> *PLOINK*
>
> -Ed
Like I said "yea... right..." as if you could know now to use a killfile
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 06:19:06 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 23 Jan 2001 17:32:30 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "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.
> >>
> >> So you need to get extra stuff just so you can kill apps. Yeah, really
> >> great. And how long has UNIX been shipping with the kill command?
> >>
> >
> >And you need extra stuff to have a working GUI? How long has windows had
a
> >GUI?
>
> About 5 years less than Unix.
>
> Those abortions known as Windows 1.x and 2.x don't count.
Then I guess the entire abortion called X can't count either - GROSS!
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 06:19:09 -0600
"nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Vfqb6.5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> You can do most admin tasks in a Telnet session to a W2k server. Use the
> supplied support tools, W2k server resource kit utilities and WSH (Windows
> 2000 Server Resource Kit should be required reading for any serious W2k
> administrator). WTS or VNC and the RPC utilities do the job for the few
> things you can't do from the CLI. I _very_ rarely touch any of my
servers,
> some are a long distance away :-)
>
> I'm not trying to argue that W2k is as good as Unix for remote admin from
> the CLI, because it isn't by a fair distance
I strongly disagree - there is NOTHING you cannot remotely administer on a
W2K box. Nothing. Period.
. MS have recognised this as a
> serious weakness (finally) and are working towards fixing it. I believe
> that you will be able to unload the GUI in Whistler(?) so they are
hopefully
> improving the CLI.
I don't really care if they do anything with the CLI - they could get rid of
it as far as I'm concerned.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 06:21:07 -0600
"Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> wrote in message
news:94lg5j$rm0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Vfqb6.5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Ehhh, actually that's not quite true when you say that Terminal
Services
> > > are slow, the protocol (RDP (I know nothing about ICA)) actually uses
> less
> > > bandwidth then X, especially trafic from the client to the
> > > TerminalServer is kept to the minimum. The result is that TS is faster
> > > than X on slow connections, on a 10+ Mbps network X feels much faster
> > > than TS. Ofcource telnet/ssh requires even less overhead if it was
> > > possible to do anything on NT in a CLI.
> > >
> > You can do most admin tasks in a Telnet session to a W2k server. Use
the
> > supplied support tools, W2k server resource kit utilities and WSH
(Windows
> > 2000 Server Resource Kit should be required reading for any serious W2k
> > administrator). WTS or VNC and the RPC utilities do the job for the few
> > things you can't do from the CLI. I _very_ rarely touch any of my
> servers,
> > some are a long distance away :-)
> >
> > I'm not trying to argue that W2k is as good as Unix for remote admin
from
> > the CLI, because it isn't by a fair distance. MS have recognised this
as
> a
> > serious weakness (finally) and are working towards fixing it. I believe
> > that you will be able to unload the GUI in Whistler(?) so they are
> hopefully
> > improving the CLI.
>
> How?
> Now this is something that I would like to know how it can be done.
> I've Whistler beta 1, pro. How do I unload the GUI?
> How much overhead does this remove? (Now this is interesting question.)
IT's a server only option called "Headless Server" - it boots the server up
without the GUI and you manage through Telnet and HTTP.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 06:21:10 -0600
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94lfh7$ur$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've actually talked to some inside Microsoft people, and Microsoft
actually
> sponsered the roll out etc, hence, not really a sign that Windows is
> superior, just shows how much marketing and con-job muscle Microsoft has.
>
I've talked to some people involved in the roll out and it was supported by
MS but hardly sponsored.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 06:22:06 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:48:14 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:94kpnb$13e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>
> >> : Not only would they have less performance, less reliability, and
> >> : less remote management capability (Win2K terminal services rocks),
> >>
> >> Anyone who thinks Windows has better remotability than UNIX is
> >> either ignorant or lying.
> >
> >Have you seen Windows terminal services?
>
> What difference would that make?
>
> At best,even swallowing Microsoft's own propaganda, it
> would only buy you faster visual connectivity on low
> bandwidth connections.
>
What do you care about "low bandwidth" connections? Anyone connecting to a
valuable server via 28.8 is a lame ass turkey and obviously the machine
isn't worth much. ugh... 56K is fast enough to run terminal services so I
use my cellular modem no problemo.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 06:25:07 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> And your point is?
That W2K is obviously stable and powerful enough to do the job.
>
>
> >
> > Talk about demanding! Is there even a streaming server available for
linux?
>
> Unix would do the same capacity with 300 servers.
HA! what a comment "nah nah, I can do that in 1/10th what you can" and
nothing to support it. I mean, what a worthless comment. You have no
fucking clue what you are talking about let alone what figures support such
a claim. Give it up looser
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:37:16 -0500
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> Hi Conrad,
>
> > And you didn't match his claim - can you actually find a negative review
> of
> > Office 2000? I bet you can't. I can find 100s for star office
>
> The most important feature about MS Office 2000 is: it is 100% MS Office
> 2000 compatible.
>
> The worst feature of any other office suite: The authors did not manage to
> achieve 100% MS Office 2000 compatibility.
>
> MS Office 2000 is a de facto standard. Every office suite that tries to
> achieve MS Office 2000 file compatibility will always be found deficient
> compared to Microsoft Office 2000.
Not for any feature, mind you, but for file compatibility. Hmmm, maybe that
Monopoly thing is right. Ya think?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:34:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
Was it white? Bill ordered a large supply of white mice, and MS
was stuck with them for quite awhile.
> 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.
I wouldn't say every time. But it is a small example of what both
companies used to be, and how good Microsoft was. I doubt the
same scenario would play today.
In any case, did you try Radio Shack <grin>?
Chris
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crappy CDROM?
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:42:14 -0500
Bones wrote:
>
> > mlw wrote:
>
> > Here's one for you:
>
> [snipped: cd-r drive and corrupted images]
>
> > Does this behavior worry anyone? I have always been worried about IDE,
> > it seems ill designed for the speeds at which it is transferring data.
> > Am I being paranoid and this is just a bad CDROM drive?
>
> It would worry me. I have noticed that some CD-R drives, namely Takaya
> drives, have a tendency to corrupt files while transferring them. I have a
> CD game that I can't play because the drive corrupts files during
> installation. If (in Windows) I specify VERIFY=ON in autoexec.bat, I get
> better results... but far from perfect.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, this drive, and all other models of this drive
> that I've tested, have the same problem.
>
> Anyway, I would ditch the drive. Is it under a warranty?
Warranty? Jeez, it is a $39.99 CompUSA special. I already ditched it, and the
new drive is better. I am more concerned with "IDE."
>
> ----
> Bones
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crappy CDROM?
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:48:26 -0500
Bones wrote:
>
> [snip]
> [trim]
> > Over the last 10 years, IDE became EIDE, ATA, etc. The specification has
> > become quite elaborate, with DMA, PIO, caching, etc.
>
> One major difference which I can't stand is that there can only be one
> master on each IDE channel. The master controls the slave device, and data
> cannot be transferred to/from both at the same time. This is not the case
> with SCSI, so things go smoothly with multiple devices transferring data on
> the same chain.
This is a result of the protocol of the chain and the interface. SCSI has a
much higher bandwidth than does a hard disk. This is mostly due to the design
of the interface. It is very immune to noise, where as IDE is quite poor.
>
> [snip]
>
> > The reason why SCSI sells for more is that most SCSI applications are at
> > a higher end. SCSI drives typically have a higher spindle RPM, better
> > seek times, and longer MTBF.
>
> Oops, I just repeated what you said.
I always get a kick out off people that don't read an entire post before
responding. Who knows, maybe I just compose messages in a way that is too
dis-joined.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:25:47 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:34:12 GMT...
...and Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Unless you run a Usenet server on NT.
Who in their right mind would do that?
> > Have you ever shut down a Linux box with ext2fs incorrectly? God help
> > you. You have a 90% chance of completely hosing your fs.
>
> That is 100% pure Chad Bullshit (tm).
Yup. I've must have had dozens of incorrect shutdowns on my machine
and I never lost any data (my machine is all Ext2).
mawa
--
D�niken the Pinhead:
Yow! I have discovered the secret of EGYPTIAN DIESEL ENGINES! YOW!!!
QUETZALCOATL's laser makes LARRY NIVEN's laser look like RONALD
REAGAN's laser!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
