Linux-Advocacy Digest #636, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Jeremy Lunn)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:50:35 -0700
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> "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!
>
> why - just read the organization line... yawn...
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> oh boy - you're a paper computer "expert" - yhipee
>
> >
> > 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/
> >
>
> wow - impressive - NOT
For a swede you aren't too bright! Were you a victim of an avalance?!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:55:07 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:HdAN6.935$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > There is that MS commercial on TV about servers that haven't been
> > touched in 'days' as though that should be a surprisingly long time.
> > Real OS's run for years without any attention. And they don't
> > pop up dialog boxes and stop and wait like IIS 5.0 does when
> > an error occurs.
>
> What is this pop-up dialog? What does it says? Who originate it?
At least you show some good common sense!
--
V
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Lunn)
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: 20 May 2001 17:00:03 +1000
In article <9daca3$1022$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Sheldon wrote:
>> Implement X-Windows; get the graphics out of kernel space.
>
> Implementing X-windows would be a signifigant step backwards in evolution.
How's it a step backwards?
There is nothing wrong with X. If anything there maybe no perfect
implementation. But for productivity uses etc these won't affect the
user. It's more likely to be a problem for gamers. Mostly it's a
problem with overhead (which will be reduced as code is imrooved).
And then tell me this... how can you display your windows apps on other
computers on the network/internet without using some crap like citrix
metaframe/vnc?
When I've been away from home and I wanted to run a GUI app, I've had no
problems doing so over my ssh connections.
>> Provide options to customize the kernel.
>
> There already are.
What you can go through the kernel source and change anything you want?
You can choose what options you don't even want in the kernel at all?
And you can optimise it to your type of processor?
>> Fix Kerberos support.
>
> Kerberos works fine.
And what about this bullshit that microsoft used to break compatibility
with kerberos on other operating systems?
>> Fix IE and IIS.
>
> IE and IIS work fine.
IE is supposed to be a standards complient browser. But it's not. Why
use IIS when there's Apache or even khttpd?
>> Make Windows 2000 portable to more machines.
>
> If the market isn't there, where is the incentive?
Because intel hardware sucks.
>> Bring the window manager up to the configurability and
>> quality of Gnome, for example.
>
> It's already far beyond the quality of Gnome.
I can't say I've used Gnome lately (I use a small leightweight one
called blackbox). But I betcha that win2k doesn't have native theme
support? or anything like the configurability of gnome. The only
problem I have with Gnome is it's memory usage and like win2k is going
to be better. Some early versions of Gnome that I used were unstable
but that's no longer the case now. How can you say that win2k has gone
beyond the quality of gnome? or even kde?
>> Very true. But I've found it much more difficult to do under
>> Linux. And going to a virtual console is very easy.
>
> Yes, crashing out of X-Windows back to a console is pretty routine.
I can't say I've had stability problems with X lately. And even still
it was just one particular video card. But if the whole thing locks up
you can usually ssh in and kill it.
I did also have a case where too many processes were spawning on one
machine and I couldn't spawn a process to kill them. But at least I
could do:
ctrl-alt-sysrq-s
ctrl-alt-sysrq-u
*hit reset button*
--
Jeremy Lunn
ICQ: 19255837
http://jeremy.austux.net/
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:07:22 -0700
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > There is a guarantee by IBM of 35 years of no hardware failures on
> their
> > > > mainframe line.
> > >
> > > I'd like to see this - show me the guarantee.
> > >
> > > Then show me the complete MORON that would run the same computer
> hardware
> > > without a single second of upgrade downtime for 35 years...
> >
> > If you don't need an upgrade, then why upgrade at all?
>
> Tell me what you know in computers that is 35 years old that doesn't need an
> upgrade?
The idea is to stay up without failure. IBM has developed such a
system. It is not the upgrade that is important here, it is the madison
avenue marketing that sways customers to their way of doing business.
Obviously, everyone upgrades to something newer or more productive.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:21:26 -0700
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> >
> >After some considerable reading at HP and other web sites... it appears
> >that the PA-RISC can execute IA-64 instructions unmodified. HP has had
> >a large hand in its development with Intel. That's about all I could
> >find out about it. There will always be development chips available
> >from Intel in small quantities, but from past experience the properties
> >may change or come more closely to what Intel wanted all along...
> >currently the IA-64 has some speed problems with certain programs having
> >to do with the predictive jump feature... can't remember all of what
> >I've found on other web sites, but it appears to be its biggest hurdle.
> >
> >--
>
> Oh don't do this. You don't want to hurt poor little
> Erik Fuckenbush and Matthew Gardiners feelings.
>
> I mean, after all, if you go read thru Intel's own web site
> they badmouth RISC in every article.
>
> You might also notice that both EF and MG are not disputing
> that HP-9000 is currently using an Intel chip.
>
> If Intel makes a risc chip then why are they badmouthing
> RISC all over the Itanium link? They really trashed it
> bad.
>
> When you start talking about 64 bit processors from Intel
> you get people refering to 3 seperate family lines from
> Intel. All of these lines came from the IA-64 idea.
>
> To be honest with you at this very moment I've lost
> some of my confidence in this issue and I'm going
> to drop it. Not because I believe EF or MG is right
> and not because I feel I'm right either.
>
> I just simply don't seem to understand why it is
> EF and MG keep hollering it's a RISC chip from
> the WEB site at HP and yet Intel claims they've
> never made a RISC chip and that RISC CHIPS are
> garbage?
>
> These two ideas here don't JIVE. Then there's
> this issue of instructions set compatibility
> as the instruction sets are the same....
>
> To my knowledge, Motorola and IBM were the only
> ones to do the RISC business. They were the
> ones who started it, not Intel.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
Yes, I have to agree with you here. Of course, lets not forget the
sparc risc processors either. Risc, in the beginning, was a research
project into the efficiencies of various instruction sets. It has been
proven that certain instructions can be implemented in RISC more
efficiently than done in CISC. A big example of this is the VAX poly
assembler instruction... RISC can do the same thing more efficiently
using a combination of simple instructions, if the the simple
instructions are guaranteed to execute in one clock cycle. This was
very much evident in the 6502 instruction set, which ran much faster
than the equivalent 8080 instruction set.
HP did advertise quite a while ago their involvement in the IA-64
development... and it wouldn't suprise me, from their past track record,
that the IA-64 would be the spittin' image of a PA-RISC! I suspect,
from a business standpoint, that HP would expect Intel to do a more
efficient job of manufacturing chips than HP could do. So... for all
intents and purposes the PA-RISC is essentially the equivalent of an
IA-64 chip!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:24:39 -0700
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 03:53:22 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:LHnN6.682$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:yCjN6.1642$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > > 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.
> >>
> >> How can anyone know the truth without access to the source? Did MS offer
> >> it for an independent audit?
> >
> >Considering that MS *DOES* license it's source to quite a few third parties,
> >including educational institutions, I'd say that's a third party audit.
>
> Any bets those third parties have to sign non-disclosure agreements?
>
You bet your sweet bippy the DOD did!
We were no fools. The DOD inspected every scrap of code for
backdoors... its called security,... in this instance National Security.
> Besides "quite a few third parties", most of whom are probably more
> interested in specific functionality issues than overall privacy and
> security, is not the same as opening up the code to anyone who feels
> like inspecting it.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:27:12 -0700
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <yCjN6.1642$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >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.
> >
>
> Ah, I think we've all seen enough examples of Viruses and Worms attacking
> Mircrosoft products AND that Microsoft itself has been lying to it's
> user base for the last 10 years that you couldn't hardly say the
> The Register or Slashdot was totally full of FUD.
>
> Take a look at the secret backdoors found in IIS.
>
> The world said they existed. MS denied it.
> The Trial ended then we had these admissions from MS
> that they did giving instructions to delete .dll's to
> close the doors.
>
> If you've examined the facts for the last 10 years and
> watched Microsoft's actions VS the information reported
> on other web sites you come to the conclusion that
> MS doctors alot of information to cover up the fact
> that they are an insecure OS.
>
> MS has repeatedly lied to it's user base and it's user
> base has repeatedly stuck with them each and every time
> a disclosure has been made.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
I sometimes wish I was back in DOD to confirm the backdoors. I have
seen some garbage put in... certain keystrokes to elicit authors and
such... but I have serious doubts to MS veracity in these situations.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:28:43 -0700
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On 18 May 2001 20:30:11 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 16 R10000s (or whatevers) CPU are certainly making more heat than 8 PIIIs
>
> Are you sure about that? Have you looked it up? Most CPU's use much
> less power than a comparable Pentium. Half as much is not uncommon.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
Most of the industrial CPUs like Mips, Sparc, Pa-risc,...etc. use a lot
less power to the point of not using a cooling fan over the chip. Lets
face it... the Intel chip line is still a vamped up 8080!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:31:01 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 18 May 2001 20:52:11
> [...]
> >Oh we get it - it's SOOO obvious that Linux is the perfect "low cost"
> >solution that there is no need to prove it to anyone eh?
>
> No; if it is the 'low cost' solution, no proof beyond the price tag is
> necessary to explain its competitive merits.
>
> >SO IBM would rather
> >spend a million dollars proving something it doesn't need to cause everyone
> >already knows the secret that Linux rox...
>
> IBM is a company; they do what makes fiscal sense, not what they "would
> rather" do. I've pointed out they have no fiscal motivation to submit
> Linux, and some reason not to, as well. You've resorted to gibberish.
>
> >... funny how sales of linux continue to be unimpressive and it continues to
> >make no inroads in the enterprise... hmmm....
>
> Sales? Yes, I'm quite sure those numbers look rather anemic, compared
> to Windows. Yet, Linux is being adopted faster than Win2K, in any
> market save a few isolated "this group of customers are locked into
> monopoly crapware because..." niches.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
It really must be cold in Sweden or Norway for Jon/Jan.
If you really want to light his fires just tell him that it takes 10
good swedes to hold down a good norwegian. (Or vice-versa)
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:33:09 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 18 May 2001 20:51:03
> [...]
> >There is a significant problem with all this: PostGres and MySQL totally
> >suck as databases and can't come close to competing with the lies of DB2 and
> >SQL Server 2000. I doubt they could even complete the benchmarks. So your
> >scenarios is fictional
>
> We will admit that open source database servers cannot compete with the
> lies of proprietary commercial database server products. That part, at
> least, is certainly not fictitious.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Gawd! Jan does'nt have any clues... He/She reminds me of a few sailors
that believed RCA made better oscilloscopes than Tektronix!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:37:09 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:RazN6.919$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9e5ndl$j69$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > > > > Perl & Python from activestate.com (free). C#, VB.NET comes with
> > > .NET
> > > > > > > beta, and there are also other languages that you can hook
> there,
> > I
> > > > > > > believe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > How do you make a .bat file interpret itself with perl and pass some
> > > > arguments as it starts? Under unix, making the first line:
> > > > #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> > > > would make perl execute it and turn on warnings.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you meant here. Can you be clearer?
> >
> > Unix looks for
> > #!/path/to/interpreter args_to_interpreter
> > at the top of an executable file so you can control
> > which shell or other interpreter parses it and force
> > it to always have certain arguments. This is a
> > general facility that works with any program that
> > reads from stdin. Any executable file can use this
> > to automatically have itself read by any other program.
> > For example:
> > ===
> > #!/bin/cat
> > test
> > ===
> > as an executable file would invoke /bin/cat, which simply
> > copies stdin to stdout and would thus print the file contents
> > to your screen (just to show that no special concepts are
> > involved for the program invoked).
> >
> > How do you do the same in Windows?
>
> Usually, it's not needed, because you use extentions to mark where it should
> go.
> I suppose you can build an interaptor that would interapt the first line
> without too much trouble, is should take only couple of minutes to do it in
> C.
>
> Again, that is now how you would do it in Windows.
> The usual thing to do is to register an extention and put the
> \path\to\interpreter args_to_interpreter as the openner of this file.
I have Perl for windows too as well as for Sun. Under windows the
#!/bin/sh/perl line isn't needed... the file extension of .pl is all
that is needed. However, the Perl binary needs to be in the execution
path. Not much difference.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:38:49 -0700
Ed Allen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >It's kind of like shooting rabbits with a shotgun.
> >
> >No sport in it.
> >
> No meat either. My uncle spooked a rabbit about two feet ahead of
> him. The motion caused him to swing down and fire at under ten
> feet.
>
> All we ever found was a few tufts of fur.
>
> Kind of like the FUD vaporizes when exposed for the half truths and
> outright lies that it really consists of.
>
> --
> Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately.
> Unconstitutional takes a little longer.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
LOL!! :-)) All too true!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[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: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:44:14 -0700
Roy Culley wrote:
>
> In article <9e655f$6k1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9e5v0u$idd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Yes, they do, or they are not code reviews.
> >> >
> >> > Wow, suddenly, reviewing code isn't a code review simply because it
> >> doesn't
> >> > review every line in a program. Do you have any idea how long it would
> >> take
> >> > to review 35 million lines of code?
> >>
> >> Had they got it right the first time, they wouldn't need to review 35
> >> Million lines of code.
> >
> > Nice rethorics, now show me the > 15KLOC that "they got it right the first
> > time".
> > Hell, wu-ftpd is 8KLOC, and they *still* didn't got all the bugs out.
> >
> >> Also, they would have programmed more efficiently,
> >> and it wouldn't have bloated to 35 Million lines of code vs. the 6 or so
> >> million Solaris 8 04/01 has.
> >
> > What does Solaris comes with? Please refer to only those 6 - 8 MLOC that you
> > talked about.
> > (BTW, can't they count? 6 to 8 is pretty big gap)
>
> What does W2K come with out of the box that Solaris doesn't? I'm eager
> to know.
>
All I know is that Solaris 8 occupies a large part of 4GB of hd space.
Most of this is from 1 CD of documentation. This I really like. The
docs are great!
The rest is from a great deal of good programs that cover the complete
spectrum from A to Z!
> --
> Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
> record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
> looking any better.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[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: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:45:31 -0700
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 19:14:17 +0200, Roy Culley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What does W2K come with out of the box that Solaris doesn't? I'm eager
> > to know.
>
> Something called "3D Audio" (according to Goodwin), fading menus, and a
> drop shadow under the mouse pointer.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
ROFLMAO!! Fading menus?? Who needs this anyway?? A shadow? Only the
shadow knows!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[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: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:47:56 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <9e655f$6k1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9e5v0u$idd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > > Yes, they do, or they are not code reviews.
> > >> >
> > >> > Wow, suddenly, reviewing code isn't a code review simply because it
> > >> doesn't
> > >> > review every line in a program. Do you have any idea how long it
> would
> > >> take
> > >> > to review 35 million lines of code?
> > >>
> > >> Had they got it right the first time, they wouldn't need to review 35
> > >> Million lines of code.
> > >
> > > Nice rethorics, now show me the > 15KLOC that "they got it right the
> first
> > > time".
> > > Hell, wu-ftpd is 8KLOC, and they *still* didn't got all the bugs out.
> > >
> > >> Also, they would have programmed more efficiently,
> > >> and it wouldn't have bloated to 35 Million lines of code vs. the 6 or
> so
> > >> million Solaris 8 04/01 has.
> > >
> > > What does Solaris comes with? Please refer to only those 6 - 8 MLOC that
> you
> > > talked about.
> > > (BTW, can't they count? 6 to 8 is pretty big gap)
> >
> > What does W2K come with out of the box that Solaris doesn't? I'm eager
> > to know.
>
> DirectX, registry, COM (I know that Solaris has it, how can it compare to
> Windows' COM?), DCOM, COM+ (This is equilent to J2EE system + Solaris. How
> many KLOC does WebSphere has?).
> Just a couple of things of the top of my head.
Solaris does not have a registry. COM is in there albeit in a different
way. DirectX isn't in there. I suspect that directX is another word
for direct ACCESS to the video hardware.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:50:29 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> >>You could put "Linux beats Win2K in terms of scalability". Instead you
> >>put the more inclusive version and added "again".
> >
> > Well, that's because the reality is that Win2K really really sucks.
> > Just for you, he didn't put that in the subject line, though.
>
> Probably because saying Win2K really really sucks is about as meaningless
> as saying Linux really really sucks.
>
> >>It's millions of desktop machines, 80% of which are running Windows of
> >>one form or another. That's the *real* world.
> >
> > In the real world, those are separate desktop machines, not one big
> > machine.
>
> Yes. Your point?
>
> > Nobody said a Windows computer was incapable of being a computer. Just
> > incapable of being reliable or high-performance.
>
> Yet 1 million desktop machines (which includes a large majority of Windows
> machines) produces one that is bigger than only one supercomputer in the
> world.
>
> --
> Pete
Pete ... there is only one major difference between linux and Win2K...
ring levels.
Win2k put the video in ring level 0 along with the kernel... Linux
didn't.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:51:54 -0700
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> In article <AVzN6.8107$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yet 1 million desktop machines (which includes a large majority of
> > Windows machines) produces one that is bigger than only one
> > supercomputer in the world.
> >
>
> Loosely coupling many PCs together across the phone lines is not the same
> as a a closely coupled cluster. The communications overhead is much too
> great to do many useful things. Where are the Windows machines that
> can do weather prediction or simulate nuclear weapons?
>
> Gary
Adm. Hyman Rickover would never let a computer near his nukey reactors!
Of course he is now deceased, but it is still a rule.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:53:55 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Donn Miller wrote:
>
> > Right. I even gave Pete some suggestions on why his printer doesn't
> > work under Linux, and got no response. I figure that if he did actually
> > read some of the suggestions, his configuration would work. Then, he'd
> > have nothing else to bitch about. He's just another Windows Whiner.
>
> You didn't read what that was all about, now did you? I fixed the problem
> by changing a setting in The Gimp. My whole point througout that thread was
> I that I shouldn't need to.
>
> --
> Pete
Of course a professional is required to go above and beyond the call of
duty.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:54:49 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> >> Interesting! And what OS is that running? Linux?
> >>
> >> AIX, IBM's proprietary implementation of UNIX.
> >
> > AIX. But it would be interesting to run Linux on it. Linux runs on the
> > RS/6000, which is the base of the system.
>
> How easy would it be to install, I wonder. How many changes would be needed
> to make it work... I guess we'll never find out unless someone has the
> money.
>
> Curious that IBM are using their AIX not Linux.
>
> --
> Pete
Not for long... they are converting.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:55:53 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> >> Interesting! And what OS is that running? Linux?
> >>
> >> AIX, IBM's proprietary implementation of UNIX.
> >
> > You are such a wanker. You love snipping so as to quote people out of
> > context.
> >
> > Idiot.
>
> About the level of response I've come to expect.
>
> So, how come the world's biggest supercomputer (bar one) consists of
> primary Windows desktops?
>
> --
> Pete
What supercomputer is this?
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
