Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
Quoting Mike Barton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Nobody answered your post probably because they couldn't guess from not having any luck why you couldn't just compile the module along with whatever kernel version you're using. I included shell output from both an attempt to load the module and an attempt to compile it. I'm sorry I haven't found that, but only the 16 line message in http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-user-9904/msg01398.html which has the modprobe output. Cheers, -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151 Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
RE: MICROSOFT BS FUD
-Original Message- From: David Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 9:06 AM To: Mike Barton; debian-user@lists.debian.org Cc: David Wright Subject: Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD Quoting Mike Barton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I suppose you just forgot to post an even minor semblance of proof? Please correct the error and let us all in on it. Better yet why not answer my iBCS anyone post of a few days ago. Seeing as the modules in -2.0.34 and -2.0.35 compare equal, and that both they and that in -2.0.33 all contain the string 2.0.33, I'd say that there's been a slip-up in versions. It's happened before and may happen again, but really only affect those people who don't compile their own kernels. Useful information, thanks. Nobody answered your post probably because they couldn't guess from not having any luck why you couldn't just compile the module along with whatever kernel version you're using. I included shell output from both an attempt to load the module and an attempt to compile it. I'm not quite sure what having a view on the report has to do with capability to answer your question. FWIW I can't see how people place any faith in independent comparisons of products paid for by one of the parties. Thereagain, the company involved doesn't even claim that comparisons are amongst the services they provide, and they place such a strong disclaimer notice at the end that one wonders about their own faith. The point is the same as that in the Mazda TV commercial that features a racy looking dude blasting through the twisties in a 626. We all know he's doing this on a closed track, under controlled circumstances and that a 626 is hardly a sports sedan. Similarly, benchmarks and other computer company advertising is all to be taken with a grain of salt.
Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
Apparently Mindcraft and MS(we don't really know this) has pulled this act before. Take a look at the response Netware has when MC did a comparison with netware. http://www.novell.com/advantage/nw5/nw5-mindcraftcheck.html Philip Thiem -- PENQUIN-LOVER-CODER ALERT: [EMAIL PROTECTED] All windows user please exvacuate the building (So I can install a better OS on the comps) Pass on the GAS get NASM instead.
Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
Quoting Mike Barton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I suppose you just forgot to post an even minor semblance of proof? Please correct the error and let us all in on it. Better yet why not answer my iBCS anyone post of a few days ago. Seeing as the modules in -2.0.34 and -2.0.35 compare equal, and that both they and that in -2.0.33 all contain the string 2.0.33, I'd say that there's been a slip-up in versions. It's happened before and may happen again, but really only affect those people who don't compile their own kernels. Nobody answered your post probably because they couldn't guess from not having any luck why you couldn't just compile the module along with whatever kernel version you're using. I'm not quite sure what having a view on the report has to do with capability to answer your question. FWIW I can't see how people place any faith in independent comparisons of products paid for by one of the parties. Thereagain, the company involved doesn't even claim that comparisons are amongst the services they provide, and they place such a strong disclaimer notice at the end that one wonders about their own faith. Cheers, -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151 Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
Christopher J. Morrone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On 14 Apr 1999, Gary L. Hennigan wrote: [snip] | You guys need to read your Slashdot (http://slashdot.org). I've heard | that this particular benchmark was commissioned by Microsoft. Anyone | who pays attention to a benchmark commissioned by one of the | interested parties deserves what they get. | | Well, while I agree with that, this is already being read and believed by | managers and suits. What we need are numbers to the contrary, not it was | commisioned by Microsoft. Again, any logical person would conclude that the test was biased given that one of the interested parties paid for the test. I'm not saying that nobody will believe it, but I think given Mindcraft's readership and their apparently close ties to Microsoft it'll have a pretty limited impact. | Of course, its not likely that anyone in the free software movement will | be able to verify the results, because they used pretty expensive | machinery. A four processor Xeon as the server, and 144 pentium test | nodes with ethernet switches. Again, read Slashdot. There's already a questioning of the procedures used by Mindcraft up on Linux Weekly News site, http://lwn.net/1999/features/MindCraft1.0.phtml Gary Opinons are my own.
Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
On 14 Apr 1999, Gary L. Hennigan wrote: | Well, while I agree with that, this is already being read and believed by | managers and suits. What we need are numbers to the contrary, not it was | commisioned by Microsoft. Again, any logical person would conclude that the test was biased given that one of the interested parties paid for the test. I'm not saying that nobody will believe it, but I think given Mindcraft's readership and their apparently close ties to Microsoft it'll have a pretty limited impact. I think the point is that the type of person that uses M$ is the type that will grab this as an argument against Linux alternatives. IE, the logical person is the minority here, and not the ones that we're worried about. The Microsoft Machine knows that. That's why they invest in FUD. Such rot needs to be challenged, which is happening now. ...RickM...
Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
On 1999-04-14 18:14, Christopher J. Morrone wrote: Of course, its not likely that anyone in the free software movement will be able to verify the results, because they used pretty expensive machinery. A four processor Xeon as the server, and 144 pentium test nodes with ethernet switches. Maybe the results are correct - Linux is still _relatively_ weak with respect to SMP, no? I mean, if Linux get's 40% juice out of a 4-way at this point (40% is a bogus number trying to illustrate that Linux doesn't scale linear with # of CPUs). How much _sense_ does it make to have a 4 way machine serve pages versus 4 single cpu (rack) machines plus a db box that can carry it? Do web servers typically need to share information that isn't stored in a datbase anyways? What does 4+1 headless machines cost versus a 4 way box? The cheastest box is $299 these days, I've heard. How many nodes does the big guys use (Lycos, Yahoo, Hotbot, CNN etc)? Just curious if anyone had some into to bring to the table... /Allan -- Allan M. Wind Phone: 781.938.5272 (home) 687 Main St., 2nd fl. Fax:781.938.6641 (fax/modem) Woburn, MA 01801Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home)
RE: MICROSOFT BS FUD
I suppose you just forgot to post an even minor semblance of proof? Please correct the error and let us all in on it. Better yet why not answer my iBCS anyone post of a few days ago. -Original Message- From: Kenneth Scharf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 3:21 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: MICROSOFT BS FUD Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid someone off to fix a benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually better than linux. http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html === Amateur Radio, when all else fails! http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or . _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
MICROSOFT BS FUD
Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid someone off to fix a benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually better than linux. http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html === Amateur Radio, when all else fails! http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or . _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Kenneth Scharf wrote: Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid someone off to fix a benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually better than linux. http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html This doesn't look good. Are the results cooked or flawed, or the configuration not optimal? Or is it true? ...RickM...
Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
Rick Macdonald wrote: Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid someone off to fix a benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually better than linux. http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html This doesn't look good. Are the results cooked or flawed, or the configuration not optimal? Or is it true? Check the NT vs. Linux as web server thread, started just a few hours before this one. Linux Weekly News is starting a rebuttal: http://lwn.net/1999/features/MindCraft.phtml Kirk
Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
There already has been feedback on the web (and this list) about this. It does appear that a great effort was made to pull all the stops out in configuring NT, and little care was given to setting up Linux. IE: use of a kerenl with know network bugs, none of apache's optimizations turned on... --- Rick Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Kenneth Scharf wrote: Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid someone off to fix a benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually better than linux. http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html This doesn't look good. Are the results cooked or flawed, or the configuration not optimal? Or is it true? ...RickM... === Amateur Radio, when all else fails! http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or . _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
Kenneth Scharf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | There already has been feedback on the web (and this list) about this. | It does appear that a great effort was made to pull all the stops out | in configuring NT, and little care was given to setting up Linux. IE: | use of a kerenl with know network bugs, none of apache's optimizations | turned on... | | --- Rick Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Kenneth Scharf wrote: | | Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid | someone off to fix a | benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually | better than linux. | | | http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html | | This doesn't look good. Are the results cooked or | flawed, or the | configuration not optimal? Or is it true? You guys need to read your Slashdot (http://slashdot.org). I've heard that this particular benchmark was commissioned by Microsoft. Anyone who pays attention to a benchmark commissioned by one of the interested parties deserves what they get. Gary
Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
On 14 Apr 1999, Gary L. Hennigan wrote: Kenneth Scharf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | There already has been feedback on the web (and this list) about this. | It does appear that a great effort was made to pull all the stops out | in configuring NT, and little care was given to setting up Linux. IE: | use of a kerenl with know network bugs, none of apache's optimizations | turned on... | | --- Rick Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Kenneth Scharf wrote: | | Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid | someone off to fix a | benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually | better than linux. | | | http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html | | This doesn't look good. Are the results cooked or | flawed, or the | configuration not optimal? Or is it true? You guys need to read your Slashdot (http://slashdot.org). I've heard that this particular benchmark was commissioned by Microsoft. Anyone who pays attention to a benchmark commissioned by one of the interested parties deserves what they get. Well, while I agree with that, this is already being read and believed by managers and suits. What we need are numbers to the contrary, not it was commisioned by Microsoft. Of course, its not likely that anyone in the free software movement will be able to verify the results, because they used pretty expensive machinery. A four processor Xeon as the server, and 144 pentium test nodes with ethernet switches.
