Linux-Advocacy Digest #702, Volume #31 Wed, 24 Jan 01 12:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Poor Linux ("Martin Eden")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Craig Kelley)
Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100. (Kevin Ford)
Re: More to an OS than GUI's (was Re: A salutary lesson ...)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Craig Kelley)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Craig Kelley)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ("Martin Eden")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Craig Kelley)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:22:49 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Martin Eden wrote:
> > > And trolling isn't?
> > >
> > > -Ed
> >
> > We're on alt.linux.sux.
>
> And your point is?
Lost on you, my faux "Unix Systems Engineer" friend.
>
> > So by definition, you are trolling our group.
>
> Wrong.
>
> By definition, you're a fucking idiot.
I have a little parable for you.
The sadist and the masochist meet together in some obscure public place. The
masochist immediately begins begging:
"O Please!" he cries, "Beat me! Hurt me! Spank me! Punish me! Make me
SUFFER!"
The evil sadist's eyes brighten, ever so slightly, as he utters the word:
"no".
HTH,
Martin Eden.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 09:32:13 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "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?
>
> Didn't think so. You would agree with me if you had.
I have.
Don't use them over a high-latency line.
90% of long-distance connections are high-latency. I just made that
figure up, of course -- but I think most would agree. SSH sucks over
high latency lines, and it only transfers 1/1000th the information
that Windows Terminal Services does. WTS even sucks over our
fibre-channel WAN (and, to be fair, so does compressed X11), but SSH
works just great.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:21:08 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bobby D. Bryant once wrote:
>"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.
>
what's the url again?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More to an OS than GUI's (was Re: A salutary lesson ...)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:35:00 -0000
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:07:30 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
>> The speed with which linux, thanks in very large part to a heretofore
>> much-maligned troll-tech, has gained on windows as a desktop OS is
>> remarkable. In doing so, at least with the mandrake release, they have
>> made all the usual FUD ( tough to install, people don't want to edit
>> config files, ugly gui, no dnd, etc ) that we hear from people like
>> yourself, the other chad, and claire, very badly out of date.
>
>That's what I don't get. The purpose of fancy GUIs with DnD is to
>appeal to the lowest common denominator of computer user. It's an
Or GUI power users.
There ARE some of those around. Infact, most GUI's can't
be fully exploited without a "real user" at the helm.
>interface which tries to appeal to the common people. But once you've
>experienced what unix can do for you, and you make that step up to a
>better OS (which is Linux, FreeBSD, or Solaris, BTW), you find that you
>don't need to rely on DnD or GUIs. The only place where GUIs are
OTOH, the shell isn't everything. Each job has it's tool
and each tool it's job. For any user, these combinations
vary remarkably. It is a false dichotomy to shun one for
the other, or to assume that longtime GUI/Unix users do
so.
[deletia]
>This is the main reason I dislike Windows. I don't care how stable
>Windows is compared to unix, I like *nix better because I can get away
>from those brain-softening, sensory-overloading GUIs. It's not too much
Alternately, you have a more viable choice. You have CLI
shells that aren't a joke and can be quite useful. You
are not forced into one mold or the other and can jump
between the two at will, or even create a hybrid of the
two drawing from the strenghts of each.
>unlike getting away from the big city and settling in to the peace and
>quiet of the suburbs. I think most Linux advocates would agree with
>this metaphor.
>
>Now I'll make my exit while GUI lovers proceed to eviscerate me.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 09:36:49 -0700
"Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> writes:
> "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:i_rb6.10$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 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.)
> > >
> > >
> > I haven't tried it but read they were working on it somewhere. Can't back
> > it up so it remains a rumor. As far as the overhead - very little RAM and
> > virtually no CPU so it's almost a moot point anyway. My main point was
> that
> > I hope they are improving the CLI to Unix levels.
>
> Then there would need to be something like clregedt.exe
> Command Line Registry Editor (which should take a compotent coder about an
> hour to write, I did, it looks a bit like DOS).
>
> All in all, I agree that it's a Good Thing(tm).
So let me get this straight: You want a command-line tool that
manipulates data stored in a heirchical format, with different mount
points for different items?
Sounds like a filesystem to me....
(I *knew* the day would come when Microsoft advocates would finally
demand a filesystem for NT's configuration data)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:37:37 GMT
Said Salvador Peralta in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> If you really would've looked, which I know is a stretch for you,
>> you would've seen that that site keeps statistics for several hundred
>> other sites. I realize that this may not be a scientific sample, but
>> it's at least in the ball park +/- 5% I would say. So, giving Linux
>> the benefit of the doubt, Linux is still 5%, so what?
>
>Exactly. So what? Windows has been shipping installed on pc's in
>stores for as long as it has been available as a product, and we already
>know that Linux is ususally bought and installed as a server OS.
>
>I've been using linux in a server capacity since 1995. Mandrake 7.2 is
>the first time that I have finally permanently replaced windows with it
>for my personal desktop ( though I have been using it as a laptop
>solution for a year and a half ), and the first time that I have felt
>comfortable replacing windows with it on my corporate desktop.
>
>The speed with which linux, thanks in very large part to a heretofore
>much-maligned troll-tech, has gained on windows as a desktop OS is
>remarkable. In doing so, at least with the mandrake release, they have
>made all the usual FUD ( tough to install, people don't want to edit
>config files, ugly gui, no dnd, etc ) that we hear from people like
>yourself, the other chad, and claire, very badly out of date.
>
>Besides the obvious success that the OS has at evangalism among
>developers, technically literate students, and end users, it's
>stability, etc. what you should really be worried about as a winShill is
>that it is easier than ever before to obtain and install development
>libraries than ever, and that all of these libraries can be had at no
>cost which means that the developer base is simply going to continue
>growing at a faster rate than the windows developer base.
>
>I liken this to the state of the US and Japanese Navies just after pearl
>harbor. Microsoft has already missed its opportunity to bury linux, and
>the productive forces of the free software and open source communities
>attached to linux is simply too large for MS to compete over the long
>haul ( the price it pays for keeping its users, administrators, and a
>large chunk of it's developers technically illiterate ).
Very well said, Salvador. Much appreciated.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 09:38:44 -0700
"nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can do most admin tasks in a Telnet session to a W2k server.
Except install any software or perform system upgrades...
I would say:
"You can accomplish very little in a Telnet session to a W2k server."
(not to mention that telnet is the most insecure protocol out there --
even Apple is using ssh by default on OS-X)
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 09:39:51 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford) writes:
> Daniel Tryba once wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> Not only would they have less performance, less reliability, and
> >>> less remote management capability (Win2K terminal services rocks),
> >
> >> Uh, no. Windows Terminal Server is a pale and slow immitation of X. You
> >> can do *anything* on UI*X from a remote telnet window, so there is no
> >> way Windoze can have more remote management capability. Also, windoze is
> >> less reliable (I'll Quote the MTTF of 12 days).
> >
> >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.
> >
>
> Compressed-X is nice. As is running X through ssh.
Why not use both?
ssh -C username@host
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:46:13 GMT
"Keldon Warlord 2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> he wasn't asking for "pretty stuff", he was asking for a well-formed site.
>
> retina burn doesn't give you return visitors...I know this for a fact. ;-)
Well perhaps he could put up some anime and Dungeons and Dragons graphics
for you. Some cheesy midi files attached and running ad nauseum in the
background would probably suit the likes of you as well.
Judging from your own site, (and I have been there, unfortunately): I think
it's safe to say that you are not in any way qualified to play the role of
"art critic".
Just my opinion, but I thought the site was fine. A bad review from "The
Future Conan" notwithstanding. lol.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 09:53:36 -0700
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> <[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...
Unfortunately no.
If you had ever had to deal with NT on a regular basis, you would have
seen the "You dont' have privileges to end this task." dialog all the
time (even if you're logged in as 'Administrator'). Many services
start up with SYSTEM privileges, and it is difficult to login as the
SYSTEM user.
The kill.exe program from the resources CD solves this problem,
although I couldn't tell you why the system doesn't allow you to do it
from the tasklist, but *does* allow you to do it from the command
line. (Any NT apologists want to handle that one?)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:55:09 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:11:41 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Conversely, with Linux, you don't need any CD full of shit because
>Linux has *ALL* of it ALREADY.
You can say that again Aaron, Linux CD's do come chock full of shit.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: 24 Jan 2001 17:53:46 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>> as possible and put the write ups into ps files (no, I don't do PDF).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>How come?
I don't like to do everything twice just because Brother Bill doesn't
think people should be able to read postscript.
>If you do a /usepackage{times}, the PDFs resulting from pdflatex or
>latex->dvi2ps->ps2pdf display in a reasonable amount of time.
>
>It shouldn't be much extra work.
It is if I have to go back to the 1994 stuff and do all of it. Also, I
don't use Latex but plain TeX (since 1982).
Moreover, the ps2pdf stuff gives execrable output.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:53:06 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Well, if someone is after you as administrator, he just telnet's to that
> > W2k-machine and simply stops at the login. Does nothing, nada.
> > POOF, no more telnet to that machine.
> > Now, isn't that a fine example of good, debugged MS-Code?
> > And, I don't think that this was one of the 60k "issues"
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
>
> -Chad
>
Hi Chad, still haunting around here? Just seeing you because my killfile is
switched off for reconfig some things.
Didn't you promise in a different thread to no longer trolling around
c.o.l.a ? Would be real nice of you, you and Conrad Rutherford (another
killfile candidate) are real big assholes.
Now to your question: You as the most prominent w2k-admin around here
SURELY have heard how to very effectively disable W2k-Telnet, haven't you?
Just do a telnet to a W2k-machine and do NOT log in, just let it wait on
the logon. POOOOOF, no more telnet, as long as telnet logon is blocked W2k
will NOT allow another Telnet. Now, isn't that nice. The same guys who give
as "quality software" like this shit telnet probably wrote the rest of W2K.
They can't even imagine a timeout on Login, just imagine that. Well,
quality like telnet in the first place, no sane guy uses Telnet to dial-in
to a machine, SSH is way better (securitywise, that is). But since
MacroShit still is years behind, they did not notice. Also there must be
something for Win2008 ("Now new, with ENHANCED SSH. Buy now, it won't
last long!!").
A, I must not forget to reactivate you in the killfile. I simply can't
trust your word to only haunt c.o.m.n.a.
Have a nice day, and don't lie more than 10 times per hour. More would be
excessive even for ilk like you
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
