Linux-Advocacy Digest #666, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: anti-MS FUD: is there such a thing? Nope! (pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:53 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:fTEN6.1201$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9e6sbv$568$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "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?
>>
>> It is usually one of those 'Cannot read memory at 0x....' with a
>meaningless
>> address that are typical of dll errors or thread conflicts. I think
>> the usual window title is 'inetinfo.exe' but sometimes it has been
>> something else. In all cases, IIS is not answering even though the
>> service is set to restart on errors, 'iisreset /restart'
>> will claim to work but actually fail whether done remotely or
>> locally. You have to actually mouse-click the 'OK' button (and
>> it generally reappears 6 or 7 times) or IIS just won't talk
>> again. Fortunately, you can use VNC to mouse-click remotely
>> (the servers are at a colo site). Unfortunately, if you try to reboot
>> with the process hung like that, the shutdown process will disconnect
>> VNC before it pops up the dialog about 'program is not responding'
>> and waiting for another mouse-click. Great design there...
>>
>> Trying to run the msxml3.dll in a separate process makes things
>> even worse. The xml process hangs more or less the same way
>> but then IIS keeps accepting requests so the load balancer doesn't
>> notice it is broken, but any pages that need xml are never delivered.
>
>Okay, did you try asking what is wrong in non-advocacy group?
He wasn't asking for help; he was providing a description as requested.
Sounds like it could be a very subtle hardware conflict or even a
hardware failure; these symptoms match the kind of stuff I've seen when
a motherboard is not long for this world. Of course, the problem is,
when it comes to Windows, "subtle" is about the best you could POSSIBLY
hope for, in terms of indications. It is just too hopelessly badly
engineered to provide much else.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:54 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 20 May 2001 13:20:02
[...]
>Look - if you corrupt memory in a service causing the service to crash -
>what do you expect it to do? [...]
Be competitive. Not monopoly crapware. That's all. It's not a huge
request, is it?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:55 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 20 May 2001 13:28:07
[...]
>HOWEVER, CA has refused to build new power plants. It takes 10 times the
>paperwork and approvals to get a power plant built in CA than ANYWHERE else
>in the USA. [...]
It isn't a shortage of electricity which is causing the problem; it is a
shortage of money to pay the jacked-up rates. More power plants
certainly aren't going to solve the problem, as it isn't lack of
efficient production which causes the price to be high, but the ability
to extort outrageous profits. It would be 10 times more efficient to
transport electricity from ANYWHERE, but CA's electrical industry
profiteers want to be able to charge more for it, anyway, over and above
the added cost of transfer from some gird with a surplus.
So of COURSE CA refuses to allow anyone to build new power plants.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:56 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001 00:31:01
>"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.
>
>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)
Please; I'd have hoped that having lived for some few decades, you'd be
smart enough to avoid such lame-brained ideas. How childish.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:57 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001 09:39:03
[...]
>> You really fail to grasp the concept that
>> Microsoft is a predatory company and does not have the interests of
>> the computing masses in mind.
>
>It's called Standard Business Practice. Are there any business's out
>there that don't do this?
None of them do, until you can prove to a judge or jury beyond any
reasonable doubt that they do. That's called Rule of Law.
>What did Sun do with Java? They tried to submit it to a standards body
>but wanted to keep control of it. That went a little awry, did it not?
Depends on your perspective; to me, it was something *not* going awry.
Sun was lied to concerning the intent or ability of the EMCA to protect
the standard from predatory exploitation.
So while your ability to *unreasonably* throw around accusations of
felonious conduct might seem like 'thinking' from your own perspective,
anyone who knows a thing about monopolization or real business knows
that, indeed, only monopolists attempt to monopolize. You may claim the
distinction between attempting to compete and attempting to monopolize
are unreasonable; indeed, you are not alone in that claim. But it isn't
hard to notice that the only ones who seriously believe the claim are
those which have monopolies threatened by legal prosecution.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:57 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001 09:41:46
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Of course a professional is required to go above and beyond the call of
>> duty.
>
>So in order to use Linux you need to be a professional? In order to use
>Windows you don't need to be. It just works.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! "It just works." LOL!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:58 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001 09:42:38
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Not curious at all. This project was contracted by the goverment years
>> ago. AIX was chosen long before IBM became interested in Linux. And
>> IBM had years of experience with using AIX on closely coupled systems
>> such as SP2. LoadLeveler and POE have not yet been ported to Linux.
>> Note that AIX 5.1 brings AIX closer to Linux. And if you look at the
>> software supported on ASCI White, you'll notice some GNU software.
>
>Linux was around "years ago". Yet IBM chose _not_ to use it.
Are you sure? I think history is rather clear on this matter; IBM did
not choose to use it. Any claim they chose not to use it is hearsay.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:44:59 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001 09:51:59
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> I'm not going to bother explaining why it is more advanced technology
>> because you probably wouldn't understand in the first place. If people
>> have only been exposed to winblows in their lives, it seems like the
>> greatest technology possible, even when it's crashing on them.
>
>Yeah right. Make your assumptions.
No assumptions.
>I worked on UNIX, OpenVMS before I came to Windows. I understand
>Operating Systems. I've studied them on and off. Guess what I do
>nowadays. I write device drivers. Let me see, what do you need to
>understand in order to write those? Why, the OS of course!
Well, parts of it, anyway. Not very technologically advanced part, I
would expect, either.
>As for Linux being "more advanced" than Windows 2000, please do explain!
>I'm curious to see which technologies you think Linux has that is more
>advanced than Windows!
Linux *is* a technology, and it is more advanced than Windows. Windows
isn't a technology, for all its acronyms; its little more than a
marketing scam and some monopoly crapware.
You don't seriously expect monopoly crapware to be able to compete on an
open market, do you? How silly!
>> OSS does it. Evaluating an OS on whether it can support 3d sound or
>> not is pretty silly, but sure, it can be done.
>
>3D sound support is of interest to me since it is my job. So it's not
>that silly.
It is not silly to you. That doesn't stop it from being pretty silly,
in its own right.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:45:00 GMT
Strictly OT: The subject line should be changed to "FTL Drives", but I
don't change subject lines much anymore.
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>Possibly... but in a nuclear reactor there is a phenomena known as the
>>"Blue Light" effect. The gov. has concluded that the blue light are
>>photons travelling faster than the speed of light... sort of a doppler
>>effect.
"Apparently" traveling faster than the speed of light. It really is
impossible to do so, to a degree beyond "we don't know how to do it".
>Funny thing. The last physicist from a sub I met told me the same
>thing. They were particles which never slowed down below the
>speed of light.
Those were called "tachyons", and as a part of serious physics theory,
they disappeared at least a dozen years ago.
>So interstellar travel is possible.
It is still possible that interstellar travel is possible, it always
will be. Because it may someday be feasible to travel interstellar
distances without traveling faster than light. This could be a simple
engineering trick, with 'colony ships', or it could use the new
discovers about string theory to try to "cheat". It turns out there are
probably seven dimensions which are incredibly small, but larger than
Plank distances. These are 'curled up', and this accounts for the
discrepancy between quantum mathematics and relativistic mathematics.
Yet, as with the familiar three or four dimensions, they are present at
every point in the universe.
So it may simply be a matter of traveling half an inch, or less, very
very slowly, through one of the extra curled up dimensions. But this is
still speculative to the degree of fantasy, not simple science fiction.
In the real world, it isn't so much that traveling faster than light
poses problems; its that the terms no longer make sense. You are not
'traveling' through three dimensions when you go light speed, but merely
succeeding in standing still in the fourth dimension: time. There is no
way to access the extra dimensions, and we know this because we no that
these extra dimensions are not accessible by matter, or matter would
indeed access them in the natural world, at something larger than Plank
distances but smaller than relativistic speeds. But, as I said,
tachyons have already been mathematically disproved; 'spooky action at a
distance' does not allow for magical hyperdrives, as far as we know.
Think of it this way, it could be that for some reason yet to be
understood, once we understand how to travel through these curled up
dimensions to 'shortcut' interstellar distances, we will only then
understand the math necessary to know why it will take centuries to
travel that half an inch. NOTHING, not even 'information' (and that
doesn't even really EXIST the way atoms and photons do) can travel
faster than light speed; the term 'travel' and 'speed' and even 'light'
don't have any meaning at such large relative velocities.
We are captive of a relativistic universe. We will remain captive, for
all time.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: anti-MS FUD: is there such a thing? Nope!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:09:24 +0100
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to call anti-MS crusades
> "FUD"?
Well that depends if it's true or not ?
> I mean, Microsoft is a company with endless financial resources,
> and Linux is clearly the underdog. It's like hurling pebbles against a
> giant.
Microsoft hurled enough pebbles. IBM fell.
>OTOH, anti-Linux propagandists are the ones whose FUD hurts the
> most, because Linux is a free operating system, is maintained (mostly)
> by volunteers working in their spare time, and has a very weak hold on
> the desktop market.
True - and IMHO this is where most of the debate in COLA seems to
revolve around - the question of the desktop Linux system for all users.
There are a few performance debacles, but mostly people here seem to
concede that Linux simply make more sense in the server space than
Microsoft's solutions. On the desktop, I think that Linux advocates tend
to go over the top and say systems are comparable when (at least for me)
clearly they are not on many levels.
>Furthermore, I have turned down a lot of jobs that
> involved MS products, because of my belief in Linux, unix, and open
> source in general.
This is an interesting position to take. I would call this the RMS
(Stallman) position on the matter. I am more pragmatic about these
issues. I am undecided on the merits of either position.
>MS by far so extremely dominant, why would MS
> supporters even bother to call anti_MS crusades "FUD"? I mean, if MS is
> so dominant, they have such a stronghold on the desktop market, and have
> such huge monetary wealth, and furthermore, if they are such a great
> company with supposedly high-quality products, then would there be such
> a thing as anti-MS FUD? I say it's impossible.
No, there are many so called "Linux advocates" that just spout crap
about windows, and I feel very bad about this. They are just whiners and
their arguments suck big time.
> Or, is MS a company built on a house of straws, ready to be toppled by
> far superior operating systems for the money, i.e., Linux, BSD, and
> unix?
In which market? Lets face it - they have almost lost the server battle.
But the desktop is their kingdom and Gates is the firm King. The knights
of hardware and the barons of software have aligned themselves with him,
only some are dabbling in the Linux space. This must change for his
kingdom to fall. Change this not, and his power just continues to grow.
His kingdom expands. The desktop would be lost.
Do we care ?
I do, I would prefer never to use Windows again, but do so without
compromise. I really believe that this day has the potential to come
within 5-9 years. There is a LOT of work to do.
>I sat the latter, and MS advocates are scared out of their wits
> that their cute wittle precious MS operating systems are about to be
> toppled by a "hacker OS" written by "geeks in their parents' basements."
There is an element of this for sure! But Linux advocates still have not
provided enough concrete reasons to satisfy the average wintroll. And
they will not be able to, because the needs of the "windows" user can't
be *fully* met at this time on the desktop (read games, drivers,
software).
Many arguments are re-hashed again and again on cola because people *d*o
care about the desktop. Until Linux people can provide a convincing blow
by blow argument then some Linux "advocates" (I would prefer to call
them dis-advocates - as they are not in the same league as the real
LinAdvocate) certainly may continue to spread FUD about Windows. Both of
these groups get as bad as each other.
The group of people you must convince is not your average wintroll, but
the device driver writers, the software makers and the Linux people who
don't care about the desktop or usability. Until that time then there is
such a thing as anti-M$ FUD, rather than logical rational arguments.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
