Linux-Advocacy Digest #612, Volume #34 Fri, 18 May 01 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! (GreyCloud)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Dell Meets Estimates ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Rich Soyack")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Terry Porter)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jan Johanson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:21:16 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > If it's old news then Charlies right... you've been spreading
> FUD
> > > for
> > > > > > > > quite a while now.
> > > > > > > > But charlie has already provided you Trolls the correctly
> dated
> > > > > articles
> > > > > > > > ... and you still can't read.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, apparently Yahoo fucked up an reposted an old article as
> new.
> > > If
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > notice, the article does not appear on the front page.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This *IS* the > 1 year old vulnerability, and it wasn't a
> backdoor,
> > > > > despite
> > > > > > > MS originally thinking it was. They later retracted it saying
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > > message was not a password at all, but simply embedded into the
> code
> > > > > while a
> > > > > > > buffer overrun vulnerability did in fact exist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo is the *ONLY* news service that has this story, and guess
> > > what?
> > > > > It's
> > > > > > > disappeared. It no longer is on the link. You'd think someone,
> > > even
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > register would have picked this up. But they didn't. In fact,
> the
> > > > > register
> > > > > > > posted a story about how Yahoo fucked up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18975.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then ya better tell that to Sun Microsystems then. They say its a
> new
> > > > > > one!
> > > > >
> > > > > They do? I can't find the link. Please provide it.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not the double decode bug that was recently discovered.
> > > > >
> > > > > Further, how much evidence does it take? Now you won't even believe
> the
> > > > > register, the place so many of you Linux advocates love to use as
> your
> > > > > source of information.
> > > >
> > > > I've read all of the previous links you have provided. It looks to me
> > > > nothing more the MS spin doctoring.
> > >
> > > So now "The Register" is a MS puppet publication? What a riot.
> >
> > Only what MS told any publication or editor... pure spin doctoring.
> > Doesn't take a genius to spot it either.
> > It's MS that is spinning its tales.
>
> Ok, so now The Register isn't smart enough to spot FUD? Any way you spin
> it, you're nailing your favorite publication and will never be able to use
> it as a reliable source to back up your claims again.
I don't trust any publication. I view this from a standpoint where MS
is currently standing. They are behind in delivering XP, behind on
delivering an O/S for IA-64.
The Register is not my favorite publication. It is what the editors
take and then publish. You can never tell for a certainty if a report
has just been taken as is from a company or if a report has been
doctored up by the editor. I've seen propaganda in industry before at
work. Some call it advertising. But in this case MS is using spin
doctoring like politicians to cover their backside.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 18 May 2001 20:22:09 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > (all W2K admin can be done through a browser too)
>
> (as long as you're running that browser under Windows)
Of course - fortunately windows is run on 98% of the worlds PCs
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:27:14 -0700
In article <9e47rb$6n5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The "mission critical" canard is balony.
>
> IBM, which supports everything the customer wants, is spending a cool
> billion on Linux.
>
> Linux rocks!
>
> Of course, my comment was about Dell and the mid-server market.
>
> 2 + 2
>
>
>>Perhaps the lack
>>of support is a factor. Another Linux weakness is hacker- vulnerability.
>>Linux systems get hacked very frequently and it's a sys. adm. nightmare
>>to keep up with the patch work... Perhaps the latter is more of a reason
>>not to use Linux in mission critical tasks ?
More bologna. Have a look at the following two pages....
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html
http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
Microsoft IIS/NT/2K, with one-third as many webservers as
Apache/Linux/UNIX, is responsible for more than three times as many
defacements.
A quick note about platform groupings - Linux hosts most of the Apache
webservers. And even though Apache will run on NT/2K, Netcraft notes that
that combination is understandably rare. And of course, IIS only runs on
NT/2K.
The rumours of Linux hackability are greatly exaggerated.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 18 May 2001 20:23:09 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Jon Johansan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 16 May 2001 08:18:10
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> > 5 9s is conservative?
> >> >
> >> > Show me any proof of such a rediculous claim. Show me ANY unix vendor
> >> > promising 6 9s of uptime. ANY OS/ANY hardware. Show me.
> >>
> >> Here's a little one from Novell:
> >>
> >> http://www.techshows.com/Calgary/novell_technologies_seminar.htm
> >
> >I meant "ANY UNIX/ANY hardware" but... so, it takes Novell to be the 6 9s
> >king and requires a cluster.
> >A Windows cluster can do this as well (and, hell, even a unix cluster).
I'm
> >talking single machines.
>
> NOBODY in the Windows world claims five nines for a single machine. Not
> without plenty of wiggle-room; that would be insanity.
Stratus sells 5 9's, HP sells 5 9's - on W2K.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 18 May 2001 20:24:12 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9duli0$rlp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
> >> >
> >> > If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
> >>
> >> If your time is worth nothing, install Linux.
> >>
> >> If both your time and money are worth nothing, then install Microsoft.
> >
> > I am convinced there is almost no way you attend oxford - unless your
> > parents paid off admissions...
>
> Hahahaha! LOL!
>
> You checked the root of my email address then!
>
> Well, I've got news for you buddy, my parents didn't pay off admissions
> (that kind of stuff doesn't happen any more) and besides if they did, I
> would have failed my first exams with flying colours and have been kicked
> out. Oh, BTW I passed, so I'm good enough to stay here.
>
> If you still don't believe me, go to the following URL:
>
> http://users.ox.ac.uk
>
> And look under my name under private pages. If you're lazy, here's a
> short cut:
>
> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~scat1148/
>
> -Ed
he said "scat" hehehe
------------------------------
From: "Rich Soyack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 01:25:57 GMT
"jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e4fal$8tec$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Ray Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e406f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Rich Soyack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >"Ray Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >
> > >> >> And where do you suppose the men gets AIDS?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> From women.
> > >> >
> > >> >Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong.
> > >> >There is no transport mechanism for any such infection to happen.
> > >>
> > >> Well, it seems that the United States Centers for Disease Control
> > >> believes otherwise.
> > >>
> > >> But what do they know? The all-knowing homophobe Kulkis says
> > >> otherwise.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq21.htm
> > >>
> > >> Can I get HIV from having vaginal sex?
> > >>
> > >> Yes, it is possible to become infected with HIV through vaginal
> > >> intercourse. In fact, it is the most common way the virus is
> > >> transmitted in much of the world. HIV can be found in the blood,
> > >> semen, pre-seminal fluid, or vaginal fluid of a person infected
> > >> with the virus. The lining of the vagina can tear and possibly
> > >> allow HIV to enter the body. Direct absorption of HIV through
> > >> the mucous membranes that line the vagina also is a possibility.
> > >>
> > >> The male may be at less risk for HIV transmission than the female
> > >> through vaginal intercourse. However, HIV can enter the body of
the
> > >> male through his urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or
> > >> through small cuts or open sores on the penis.
> > >
> > >What was left out of this statement was the fact the there would have
to
> > >be vaginal lessions for the AIDS virsus to be effectively transmitted
to
> the
> > >male in vaginal intercourse.
> >
> > Indeed? So you too know better than the US CDC and all of those
> > medical researchers? A woman needs a vaginal lesion in order
> > to lubricate. Another thing I never knew.
>
> LOL. Perfect.
Well, if you read what you posted, Ray, it says "The lining of the vagina
can tear..."
"tear" here appears to be a verb. If that is the usage then they are
referring to a
tear or lesion, since a tear is indeed a lesion. I took it to be a verb
because doctors
that I've asked about this tell me that transmission of the virus vaginally
most likely
takes some vaginal lesions. Or do you believe they are using it as a noun?
Rich Soyack
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: 18 May 2001 20:26:10 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Interconnect wrote:
> > >
> > > > [HUGE SNIP]
> > > > > This is coming from a person who plays games on the server, ROFL!
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthew Gardiner
> > > >
> > > > What do you expect from a dedicated Windows *professional* :D
> > >
> > > Of course. Chad Myers is the sort of idiot who would user a server as
a
> > > workstation as well. On several occasions that was he said thats what
> > > he also used the server for. Maybe Chad should get back and complete
> > > some work, as a Office Clerk, instead of hanging around the System
> > > Admins office whilst looking through the window like a dog looking at
a
> > > bitch.
> >
> > Why not?
> > Small servers spend most of their time idle, why shouldn't they double
as a
> > workstation?
> > You save costs this way, you know.
>
> You also increase the chances of the OS crashing.
Not on W2K - what OS do you use that has that fear?
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 18 May 2001 20:30:11 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e01ph$i15$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So - if you want better performance, less heat, less maintenence (single
> > vs cluster of servers), and save a bundle of money - go MS.
>
> cite please. Evidence that R10000s (or whatever they were) make more heat
> than PIII's.
16 R10000s (or whatevers) CPU are certainly making more heat than 8 PIIIs...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 19 May 2001 01:26:15 GMT
On Fri, 18 May 2001 14:00:23 +0100,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9e1dea$gip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Almost forgot:
>>
>> Chad, Jan, Ubertroll, Todd, etc, what do you have to say to this:
>>
>> In the real world (ie not benchmarks) Linux is near the top in terms of
>> price/performance and scalibility. Win2K doesn't put in a single showing.
>
> And in the *real* world of desktops, where is Linux, pray tell?
I live in the real world, and in certain process controll areas in
Western Australia, you can find devices (solid particulate level controllers)
that were designed on my Linux only desktop.
>
> Absolutely... nowhere?
Incorrect, as shown above.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete Goodwin
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
> My opinions are my own
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 01:39:13 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > You totally disregard direct quotes.
> >
> > Only sometimes!
>
> Bullshit. Eveytime it conflicts with your view.
No, no, sometimes I make excuses. :D
[snip- "They stole the market place"- it's tired already]
> > No way. If this were true all the developers would have switched
> > to Windows once it was dominant- and they didn't.
>
> Statistically they have.
It's the timing of the thing. Different groups of
developers switch at different times; they
switch when Winodws begins to offer
real advantages for whatever-it-is they
happen to do.
[snip]
> > > becasue window$ is the dominant OS. Its what "everyone else" has. And
m$
> > > stole the marketplace.
> >
> > You've not given any reason for *anyone* to care
> > about that, per se.
>
> care about which part. The market place thievery?
No, I mean the reason why anyone cares that
Windows is the dominant OS. Anyone but OS
connoseurs, anyway.
You say users choose windows because "everyone
is using it"; but why do they care?
Is it a fashion statement?
[snip]
> > > Thats crap. When the PC came out it was unfavorably compared with
> > > Tandy's CP/M machines... but since no one was ever fired for buying
> > > IBM... and the PC was running M$-DO$...
> >
> > None of the machines you mentioned are CP/M machines.
>
> So what? Tandy's Model (whatever) machines were CP/M based, and they
> were found to be better than IBM's PC in several reviews. I guess you
> think I should now spend several hours searching for reviews because you
> are too lazy to actually search for something that might conflict with
> your view.
I'd like to see those reviews. If this is the original 8 bit
CP/M on an 8080 or Z80 we are talking about, I
wonder what they found to like about it.
I suspect it wasn't anything to do with the OS;
CP/M and MS-DOS are like twins separated
at birth.
> > The PC was better than any CP/M machine; MS-DOS
> > was very close to CP/M but a little more user
> > friendly (you know COPY instead of PIP, that
> > sort of thing). It could take more memory and
> > had a 16-bit ALU.
>
> Yeah. m$-DO$ was very close to CP/M. Thats why IBM paid Killdal 800,000
> dollar so he would sue over the CP/M code in it.
Miffed at Microsoft, were they?
Yes, MS-DOS was very close to CP/M indeed.
This was a shame; 16 bit computers could do much
more. MS-DOS was better suited to the old
8-bit machines.
A good example of a 16-bit OS is MacOS
(er, pre X that is). No fancy MMU stuff
(they didn't have those), but lots of
application services.
[snip]
> > It *was*. Those old 8-bit machines were
> > awful. They could address 64k; the ones
> > that had 128k used bank switching, which
> > is horrid.
>
> It worked very well for me. and others I knew.
You never tried to program one, I think.
Programs like AppleWorks were remarkable
coups of software engineering, in that
they were able to cope with such a horrid
execution environment.
But such efforts are, in a sense, wasted;
all the clever coding that made AppleWords
possible could have been better applied
to more substatial features.
[snip]
> > > They could support great apps at the time. I was using Appleworks with
1
> > > meg of memory when the DOS world thought 640k was all teh memory you
> > > needed.
> >
> > Apple IIs could directly address 48k of RAM, but
> > with bank switching could get to more. 64k wasn't
> > too bad; after that you were bank switching like
> > a maniac. It was very problematic.
>
> Dont you mean they could directly address 64k of memory?
Not RAM. There was some ROM and some I/O memory
mapped into the address space. They could have 64k
of RAM, but you had to switch banks to get to it.
> > IBM PC's could do the same thing; it was
> > called expanded memory, and you could access
> > >640k that way.
>
> And I was accessing 1 meg while you PeeCee people were giddy over the
> possiblity of 640K.
I meant, of course, *more than* 640k.
The 8086 and 8088 could address 1 megabyte of
memory directly, but the IBM PC had lots of
hardware IO stuff mapped into the top of the
address space. Thus it could not be used for
RAM, just as with the Apple II.
And as with the Apple II, you could
use bank switching to go beyond that.
> > It's a horrible hack in any computer, but
> > even that works better on the IBM PC.
> > On the PC your back was 64k in size-
> > on an Apple II it was 16k. You could
> > work in bigger chunks on the PC, a
> > definite plus.
>
> The end user didnt see any of that.
No, what the end user saw was that
PC applications were better. They
ran faster and they had more features.
Developers saw that they could
program with Turbo Pascal. *That*
was a big deal. :D
[snip]
> > > > Game developers were like other developers-
> > > > they switched when switching would allow
> > > > them to produce a more competitive product,
> > > > and only then.
> > >
> > > ... a competitive product made by ... micro$oft.
> >
> > You know, that comment makes it way too obvious
> > that you didn't actually bother to read the paragraph
> > you were responding to.
>
> Does it? I dont think so.
You know: "allow them to produce a more
competitive product"; can the "them" really
be construed to refer to Microsoft somehow?
I think it can only refer to "game developers"
or "other developers".
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 18 May 2001 20:41:04 -0500
Ed - you are a mess...
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e0eeo$qc9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No matter what, in every case, you prefer Unix simply because it's not
> > Windows 2000. You would rather use a unix solution every time rather
> > than Windows 2000 because you know the limitations of various Unix OSes.
>
>
> There's nothing too wrong with using what you best know: after all you
> can probably do better with an inferior system that you know very well,
> compared to a better ony you're not familiar (note: I'm not calling UNIX
> inferior).
Sure.
>
>
> > If an independent test shows some result you ignore it.
>
> Bench marks aren't a good measure or anything except the ability to do a
> benchmark test. What's the use of something that is 1.5x as fast, but
> crashes nightly (which doesn't show up in a benchmark).
Given that these benchmarks in a day or two of running are stressing the
systems to what it would be like to idle along for months - I'd say
relialbity is also being tested to some degree. Fortunately w2k not only
does not crash nightly, I'm not knowing it to crash at all. It stays up for
months upon months until *I* decide I want it not to for whatever reason I
choose.
>
>
> > The only thing that matters to you is that Linux is Open source. i.e.,
> > Open Source=Better than everything else. Simply by the virtue of the
> > fact that you have the code in your hands means that it's better than
> > anything else.
>
> Anecdotal evidence suggests that this model works extermely well.
Actually quite the contrary. Can you point to ANY successful open source
business? Didn't think so. I don't expect we'll see any either. Hows Ezael
doing?
>
>
>
> > Hmm... and if you had the code to Windows in your hands,
> > just suppose, would that make it better than everything else and tied
> > with other open source OSes? Beginning to see some holes here Donn...
>
>
> If Win2K was GPL'd or BSD'd, it would be much better in any ways.
unknown.
>
> > You are biased towards what you know and dislike what you don't. OK, I
> > can understand that.
>
> Hey, who isn't? After all, you are too.
Like I said...
>
> > But don't you think you are being unfair? how would
> > you know scripting is easier on unix than Windows if you've never done
> > it, really tried it seriously.
> > I find scripting on windows to be
> > effortless but don't often need it cause it's just as easy to fire up VB
> > and write a quick app there as it is to use vbscript in wsh.
>
> Doesn't VB cost money?
Sure which is why using vbscript in wsh is a cheap alternative. Or using
javascript in wsh. or perl in wsh... etc.
> Also, VB is one language only. Every language has
> strengths and weaknesses and no one language is best at everything. UNIX
> bydefault comes with quite a few. A decent modern installation of Linux
> comes with loads. I can think of many taskls where VB would be totally
> inferior to AWK and many tasks where the oppersite would be true. For
> really good scripting a good choice is needed.
fortunately wsh lets you run several languages for scripts. vb and java
being the two primary with C# being the next in line...
>
>
>
> > It's flat out not easier to add users in linux, W2K has a command line
> > version for practically everything you would want to admin and you can
> > add users from the cmd line too, as easily as any other OS.
>
> OK, so they're both incredibly easy, using a single line command.
unix is definately more adapt on the cmd line, I wouldn't argue there. I
never said W2K was _easy_ in the cmd line - it's a GUI OS after all ...
>
> > W2K uptime
> > is rock solid.
>
> riiiiiiight.
damn straight!
>
> > Anyone tells you different is lying.
>
> Hey EVERYBODY! J[ao]n says MS themselves are Lying!
> 120 Days (from MS themselves) *with* a nightly reboot is not solid by
> anyones stretch of the imagination. And MS claimed that. Guess thay are
> lying then.
>
Make up your mind, do they reboot nightly (for which you have absoutely no
proof whatsoever and in fact are completely wrong and obviously making up
FUD) or are they up for 120 days average (because they are load balanced).
>
> > W2K is not NT and
> > definately not W9x. None of those uptime stories applies. Please don't
> > reduce credibility by trying to assail W2K uptime, cause it just won't
> > fly with EVERYONE using it.
>
>
> Win2K can never be the most stable platform around simply because of the
> shoddiness of peecee hardware (even the big high quality boxes). It will
> be a long time before MS+selected vendor can guarntee an uptime of 35
> years. Do you seriously think that in 8 years we will see Win2K servers
> with uptimes of 8 years?
Actually - i really could give no less care to such statements. I have no
interest whatsoever in a box that can stay up for 35 years because I know
for a certain fact that in 35 years I will have WANTED to upgrade the entire
system several times utterly. Because in 35 years computer technology would
change so much it would be stupid and ineffiecient beyond belief to keep a
35 year old case running just so someone can claim the OS is up that long -
because obviously in 35 years that same application running on that decrept
old OS will be useless. Get it? In the past perhaps running for 8 years
meant something USEFUL but today that's just talk like benchmark talk.
Uptime for the sake of uptime alone. Look - w2k is fully capable of staying
up and running for 8 years on a nice redundant PC server - but, why ? that
would be one forgotten PC if you ask me.
The fact is W2K, like other good OSes, can stay up and running as long as
the user wants it to, i.e., it doesn't crash on it's own for no good reason.
IT took a while to get to where I can finally say that without any fear of
proof to the contrary but that time is now. W2K is rock stable. Period.
>
> No we won't, coz PC hardware is poor. S/390's can manage with hot
> upgrades. 8 years, no downtime, no origioal components (except the
> case). Until Win2K can have real stability like that, don't claim it is
> rock solid, because it won't fly with anyone.
As I've said before - apples and oranges and those two don't mix. Who cares
what a mainframe can do versus a PC.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 19 May 2001 01:30:30 GMT
On Fri, 18 May 2001 04:41:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Terry Porter in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 May 2001 04:16:02 GMT;
>>On Thu, 17 May 2001 02:17:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>> Typical no content, attack the messenger instead of the message
>>> response from a linonut.
>>
>>Yep, I learnt the technique from you Flatty :)
>>
>>>
>>> Are all of you guys cut out of the same mold or something?
>>
>>Umm ... why yes, Max is my clone brother, from the Linux advanced
>>bot labs!
>
> We're not supposed to tell the flatheads the Great Secret, Terry! What
> is WRONG with you?!? ;-)
Just a minor buffer overflow Max, just fixed it with a Linux patch :)
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 18 May 2001 20:42:09 -0500
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Sounds better than it was, though with UNIX, you can use an arbitrary
> >> executable as the interpreter.
> >
> > You can do the same in Windows, what is your point?
>
> Not for WSH-compliance, you can't.
"WSH compliance" - you just made that up, come on admit it.
>There's more to it than that. I
> looked into this once, and decided that MS could blow goats before I'd
> devote serious spare-time to figuring out what was going on.
Figuring out WSH? Ummm. .. can anyone be that dense and operate a computer.
You write a tiny piece of BASIC code (you can type 'PRINT "HELLO WORLD"'
right?) and then by giving it an executable extention (.vbs) it runs. Hard?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
