Micros~1 benchmarks own software
Daeron
Joris Evers April 06 2005 San Francisco -
Microsoft Corp. is expanding its "Get the Facts" campaign against Linux
by talking about the reliability of Windows versus Linux systems ..
[...]
"Reliability has been challenging for us. It is an area that has been
very noisy," [Martin Taylor - Microsoft] ..
In the absence of a clear definition of reliability or benchmarks,
Microsoft commissioned a study ..
[ The reason there is an absence of benchmarks
is that MICROSOFT FORBIDS THEM !!! ]
.. As part of the study, 18 Linux and 18 Windows system administrators
were hired to run the simulated IT environments
"This is about end user uptime and how easy it is to configure and
maintain a reliable environment,"
[...]
"We found that the Linux environment provided about 15 percent more end
user loss of productivity," Taylor said ..
Additionally, the study found that the Windows administrators were able
to complete more assigned tasks than their Linux counterparts ..
Linux administrators ran into a number of issues including a lack of
integration, bad documentation, missing drivers and update patches that
caused trouble, Taylor said.
Also, Windows WARNED the administrators when the system was LOW ON
MEMORY, for example, allowing them to act, while the Linux system DID
NOT, resulting in system downtime, Taylor said.
[ ? ha ha haa ..
I believe `top' might have something to do with it. And unlike the
Micros'1 equivalent doesn't start counting from 20%.
Would anyone here like to show one of these `18 Linux system
administrators' how to type `top' at a command prompt. And how to use
it in a shell script to trigger an alert. ]
Having compared "apples to apples," Microsoft's Taylor said that he
feels good about Microsoft's reliability story.
[...]
Microsoft plans to use the reliability data it got from the VeriTest
study in new ads, Taylor said ...
http://snipurl.com/dusi
http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=603&pubid=3&issueid=38
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
I think the use of rigged benchmarks, all paid for by Microsoft, is
going to backfire on them. There has been some press already on how
their credibility has suffered recently as a result of this practice.
windo...@yahoo.com
> I think the use of rigged benchmarks, all paid for by Microsoft, is
> going to backfire on them. There has been some press already on how
> their credibility has suffered recently as a result of this practice.
"all paid for by Microsoft"? You're a pathetic liar, you pull all kinds
of stupid stories out of your ass.
Idiot.
DFS
> [ The reason there is an absence of benchmarks
> is that MICROSOFT FORBIDS THEM !!! ]
Liar.
Thunderbolt & Lightfoot
> Microsoft gets more 'facts' for anti-Linux campaign
> Joris Evers April 06 2005 San Francisco -
>
>
> Microsoft plans to use the reliability data it got from the VeriTest
> study in new ads, Taylor said ...
>
> http://snipurl.com/dusi
> http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=603&pubid=3&issueid=38
>
Yes, Clorox makes shirts "whiter than white".
And Cascade's "sheeting action" washes away spots.
And Dove doesn't dry your hands the way "soap" can.
Why do we expect software companies to be honest, upholders of the law
when every other type of vendor on the planet is assumed to be lying
through the teeth?
Robert Newson
Really? would you care to explain this on Micro$oft's website:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnnetdep/html/redisteula.asp
In particular, this point:
"You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET
Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without
Microsoft's prior written approval."
I think you had better apologise to Daeron.
DFS
I think NOT. That's ONE product out of the many hundreds MS sells.
Daeron, cola bozo that he is, put forth a blanket lie, and he knew it to be
a lie when he posted it. If anyone should apologize, it's him.
7
> Microsoft gets more 'facts' for anti-Linux campaign
> Joris Evers April 06 2005 San Francisco -
> Also, Windows WARNED the administrators when the system was LOW ON
> MEMORY, for example, allowing them to act, while the Linux system DID
> NOT, resulting in system downtime, Taylor said.
>
> [ ? ha ha haa ..
>
> I believe `top' might have something to do with it. And unlike the
> Micros'1 equivalent doesn't start counting from 20%.
BWAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Even a newbie like me can leave the top command
running to monitor system resources!!!!
Wow! These microshaft turds are thick shits after all!!!!!!!
AHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH!!!
I bet microshaft recruited all their 3 legged staff from this
highly publicised event.....
"A party in a gay club was followed up by a recruitment
pitch by Microsoft.."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/04/microsoft_black_hat_job_pitch/
BWAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
7
You criticing a GNU/Linux advocate?!
Astroturfers like you that don't accept that falsified
microshafts benchmarks as rubbish are making me skeptical and
make me want to join the other skeptics and
switch to GNU/Linux for good! Windopes suck. I think I will
go and try some of the 200+ free liveCDs out there.
http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
The Ghost In The Machine
<website_...@www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:11:53 GMT
<doX4e.5330$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> 65.241.12.7 astroturfing sock puppet wrote:
>
>>
>>> I think the use of rigged benchmarks, all paid for by Microsoft, is
>>> going to backfire on them. There has been some press already on how
>>> their credibility has suffered recently as a result of this practice.
>>
>> "all paid for by Microsoft"? You're a pathetic liar, you pull all kinds
>> of stupid stories out of your ass.
>>
>> Idiot.
>
>
> You criticing a GNU/Linux advocate?!
Nothing wrong with that ... *as long as he has actual facts that
he can use to back up his claims*. (Ideally, an independent survey.)
Personally, I think mvp has all of the credibility of a wet noodle. :-)
And everyone should look at Microsoft benchmarks with suspicion
after that Mindcraft debacle, where among other things the Windows
system was tweaked to perfection and the Linux system slapped onto
the computer, in the slower part (inner cylinders) of the disk.
(I'm going to have to benchmark that at some point. Color me curious.)
>
> Astroturfers like you that don't accept that falsified
> microshafts benchmarks as rubbish are making me skeptical
Making? :-)
> and make me want to join the other skeptics and
> switch to GNU/Linux for good! Windopes suck. I think I will
> go and try some of the 200+ free liveCDs out there.
> http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
>
I am really going to have to get my HP 6020i working at some point... :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Linønut
>> Microsoft plans to use the reliability data it got from the VeriTest
>> study in new ads, Taylor said ...
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/dusi
>> http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=603&pubid=3&issueid=38
>
> Yes, Clorox makes shirts "whiter than white".
> And Cascade's "sheeting action" washes away spots.
> And Dove doesn't dry your hands the way "soap" can.
>
> Why do we expect software companies to be honest, upholders of the law
> when every other type of vendor on the planet is assumed to be lying
> through the teeth?
Because, with other types of vendors, we still have a choice of multiple
vendors.
With the operating system on PCs, there is effectively only one choice, and
that is Windows. And the situation is nearly as bad in Office Suites and
C++ compiler suites.
Why do we put up with a situation in software that we would not tolerate in
manufacturing and dry goods?
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
When all you have is Microsoft software, everything looks like Windows.
rapskat
page fault at address
<1112810473....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, details as follows
.vbs
> .. As part of the study, 18 Linux and 18 Windows system administrators
> were hired to run the simulated IT environments
IOW, they picked 18 of the highest rated M$ Certified Professionals
(probably from within their own crew) to administer the Windows systems
and then went to the local shelter to find 18 "Linux Administrators".
--
rapskat - 20:30:57 up 1 day, 17:58, 4 users, load average: 1.61, 1.45, 1.22
"Like a fish, one should look for holes in the net."
-- Samoan, courtesy of kursu on irc.linpeople.org
ratboy
an inpendent person to do it and not being paid by microsoft or linux
billwg
> Thunderbolt & Lightfoot poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>
>>>Microsoft plans to use the reliability data it got from the VeriTest
>>>study in new ads, Taylor said ...
>>>
>>>http://snipurl.com/dusi
>>>http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=603&pubid=3&issueid=38
>>
>>Yes, Clorox makes shirts "whiter than white".
>>And Cascade's "sheeting action" washes away spots.
>>And Dove doesn't dry your hands the way "soap" can.
>>
>>Why do we expect software companies to be honest, upholders of the law
>>when every other type of vendor on the planet is assumed to be lying
>>through the teeth?
>
>
> Because, with other types of vendors, we still have a choice of multiple
> vendors.
>
> With the operating system on PCs, there is effectively only one choice, and
> that is Windows. And the situation is nearly as bad in Office Suites and
> C++ compiler suites.
>
> Why do we put up with a situation in software that we would not tolerate in
> manufacturing and dry goods?
>
marc
> Microsoft gets more 'facts' for anti-Linux campaign
> Joris Evers April 06 2005 San Francisco -
>
> Microsoft Corp. is expanding its "Get the Facts" campaign against Linux
> by talking about the reliability of Windows versus Linux systems ..
>
> [...]
>
> "Reliability has been challenging for us. It is an area that has been
> very noisy," [Martin Taylor - Microsoft] ..
>
> In the absence of a clear definition of reliability or benchmarks,
> Microsoft commissioned a study ..
>
> [ The reason there is an absence of benchmarks
> is that MICROSOFT FORBIDS THEM !!! ]
>
> .. As part of the study, 18 Linux and 18 Windows system administrators
> were hired to run the simulated IT environments
>
> "This is about end user uptime and how easy it is to configure and
> maintain a reliable environment,"
>
> [...]
>
> "We found that the Linux environment provided about 15 percent more end
> user loss of productivity," Taylor said ..
>
> Additionally, the study found that the Windows administrators were able
> to complete more assigned tasks than their Linux counterparts ..
>
This I like. Is that because the Windows administrators had more patches
to install than the Linux ones?
> Linux administrators ran into a number of issues including a lack of
> integration, bad documentation, missing drivers and update patches that
> caused trouble, Taylor said.
Bollocks!
> Also, Windows WARNED the administrators when the system was LOW ON
> MEMORY, for example, allowing them to act, while the Linux system DID
> NOT, resulting in system downtime, Taylor said.
>
> [ ? ha ha haa ..
>
I concur, BWAHAHAHAHA!
18 Linux administrators did not know how to use the top command???? I find
that incredible. Where did these 18 administrators come from? Camp
loony, for the terminaly stupid.
> I believe `top' might have something todo with it. And unlike the
> Micros'1 equivalent doesn't start counting from 20%.
>
> Would anyone here like to show one of these `18 Linux system
> administrators' how to type `top' at a command prompt. And how to use it
> in a shell script to trigger an alert. ]
>
> Having compared "apples to apples," Microsoft's Taylor said that he
> feels good about Microsoft's reliability story.
Of course he does, Uncie Bill pays his salary.
> [...]
>
> Microsoft plans to use the reliability data it got from the VeriTest
> study in new ads, Taylor said ...
>
> http://snipurl.com/dusi
> http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=603&pubid=3&issueid=38
Microsoft are desperate. And the only weapon they have now is the bold
face lie.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
marc
[snip]
> You criticing a GNU/Linux advocate?!
>
> Astroturfers like you that don't accept that falsified
> microshafts benchmarks as rubbish are making me skeptical and
> make me want to join the other skeptics and
> switch to GNU/Linux for good! Windopes suck. I think I will
> go and try some of the 200+ free liveCDs out there.
> http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
I find it particularly amazing that Daeron posts an article, and
billwg, DFS & windows_mvp all step in at the same time defend
Microsoft. orchestrated, of course!
marc
It's you thats the idiot. Do you think that people would rig benchmarks
for nothing? I think not. They would expect a big bribe to do that.
Jesse F. Hughes
>> Also, Windows WARNED the administrators when the system was LOW ON
>> MEMORY, for example, allowing them to act, while the Linux system DID
>> NOT, resulting in system downtime, Taylor said.
>>
>> [ ? ha ha haa ..
>>
>
> I concur, BWAHAHAHAHA!
>
> 18 Linux administrators did not know how to use the top command???? I find
> that incredible. Where did these 18 administrators come from? Camp
> loony, for the terminaly stupid.
Are administrators supposed to spend their days periodically checking
the output of top on the server?
I don't know what they mean when they say "Windows WARNED the admins."
With what? A pop-up window on the server? Not very useful. A remote
warning to an admin's desktop machine? Pretty useful.
But "top" doesn't seem to be the same functionality as they're
describing in any case. (I can't be too sure here, since I don't know
exactly what functionality they *are* describing.)
--
"Being in the ring of algebraic integers is just kind of being in a
weird place, but it's no different than if you are in an Elk's Lodge
with weird made up rules versus just being out in regular society."
-- James S. Harris, teacher
Jesse F. Hughes
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:11:53 +0000, 7 wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> You criticing a GNU/Linux advocate?!
>>
>> Astroturfers like you that don't accept that falsified
>> microshafts benchmarks as rubbish are making me skeptical and
>> make me want to join the other skeptics and
>> switch to GNU/Linux for good! Windopes suck. I think I will
>> go and try some of the 200+ free liveCDs out there.
>> http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
>
> I find it particularly amazing that Daeron posts an article, and
> billwg, DFS & windows_mvp all step in at the same time defend
> Microsoft. orchestrated, of course!
You're right. It couldn't happen that each of them read Daeron's post
and independently chose to respond. It's a conspiracy, but you
cracked it!
--
"I am a force of Nature. Time is a friend of mine, and We talk about
things, here and there. And sometimes We muse a bit [...] and then We
watch them go... in the meantime, Time and I, We play with some of
them, at least for a little while." --- JSH and His pal, Time.
Mark Kent
ratboy <coli...@gmail.com> espoused:
> if they wanted to do research about linux vs microsoft wouldnt they get
> an inpendent person to do it and not being paid by microsoft or linux
>
No. They don't do that, because if they did, they wouldn't get the
answers they're looking for.
What they want to do is take Windows' own problems, and make out that
it's linux, not windows, which has those problems. Here's the biggest
clue:
"Linux administrators ran into a number of issues including a
lack of integration, bad documentation, missing drivers and
update patches that caused trouble, Taylor said."
One at a time:
1. lack of integration.
This is essentially a meaningless statement, but is standard
Microsoft pitch.
2. bad documentation.
Linux/free software is the most comprehensively documented
software I've ever come across. A standard install has more
on-machine information than £000s of books from Microsoft.
Then there's google, mailing lists, irc channels, websites,
AND books, magazines, etc. etc. Linux documentation project,
gods, it just goes on and on.
The term 'bad' is interesting - it's trying to spin the
documentation as not being of good quality, so perhaps they're
accepting that the documentation for Linux is plentiful, so
instead taking one of the standard wintroll lines, which is
the equivalent of 'choice is a bad thing'. Poor documentation
is a Microsoft problem, not a Linux problem.
3. missing drivers
Missing from where? For what? There's no doubt that anyone could
contrive a hardware setup which any OS would have trouble with.
It would be interesting to watch Windows admins set up a Windows
network using Sparcs, say. Or any intel machine more than about
3 years old. A good admin would ensure that they only obtain
hardware which *is* supported by their OS of choice. This
is therefore *not* a Linux problem, it's an *admin* problem.
4. update patches that caused trouble
This is the classic Microsoft problem. It's not clear from this
very short quote what was being referred to, but Microsoft has
a long history of patches which break their OSes, whereas Linux
distros have an excellent history of rapid, high-quality
patches. I imagine that they managed to find something which
wasn't perfect, though, but overall this an area where Microsoft
has known, major, problems.
To put it another way, I'm not sure I'd trust Microsoft to accurately
describe the experiences of Windows admins, let alone Linux admins.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing
what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions.
-- David Jones
Jim Trice
<much snipping>
> 18 Linux administrators did not know how to use the top command???? I find
> that incredible. Where did these 18 administrators come from? Camp
> loony, for the terminaly stupid.
>
Forget top in this case. 18 Linux admins, and between them no one had heard
of ulimit??
--
Regards,
Jim
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> Are administrators supposed to spend their days periodically checking
> the output of top on the server?
Obviously not, and personally that's not how I'd do it. Instead I'd
write a quick script or program to periodically look at /proc/meminfo,
and mail or SMS the admin when memory levels become critical. Possibly
combined with the creation of extra swap space in a regular file.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCVPBUd1ZThqotgfgRAh36AJsGdOz4d+ayTDSPqYpni1bL1IA7cwCfT1hz
pNUSKxuTU9zjFoXrYTg99lQ=
=xL+Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
It's better to burn out than it is to rust.
Richard Rasker
Well, sometimes days pass by without me buying airliners, but I can choose
between several well-known manufacturers (Airbus, Boeing, and Douglas, to
name just the most familiar ones), and even more smaller ones.
So what's your point - except that you make a very stupid comparison
between a commodity product like software, and some serious capital
investment such as a jet airliner?
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
Marc
>
> Are administrators supposed to spend their days periodically checking
> the output of top on the server?
Top is useful, because it can be scripted to post alerts, where and when
required. They don't need to spend all day looking at it.
>
> I don't know what they mean when they say "Windows WARNED the admins."
> With what? A pop-up window on the server? Not very useful. A remote
> warning to an admin's desktop machine? Pretty useful.
>
> But "top" doesn't seem to be the same functionality as they're
> describing in any case. (I can't be too sure here, since I don't know
> exactly what functionality they *are* describing.)
They are not describing any functionality. Its all bogus anyway. Linux
(and *NIX) have top. It can be scripted to post alerts. Windows has a
popup from the task bar warning of memory shortage. Not much use if the
admin is not logged on. Windows also has the Performance logs, which can
alert, usualy via a broadcast "net send" to the admins workstation.
In terms of functionality, they are both the same. If more functionality
is required, third party management software is required. Any enterprise
level server will come with that anyway, such as Dell openmanage, and HP
(compaq) Insight Manager. Both now I believe provide agents for both
Windows and Linux. They both provide all the alerts an admin ever needs.
The article stated that Windows warned the admins that memory was low, and
gave them time to act, and Linux did not, which meant downtime. That is a
very bogus statement, if the Linux admins they picked knew anything at all
about Linux or *nix in general, they would have had the competance to know
when memory was short. Now, as far as I know, when Windows runs out of
virtual memory, killing apps is not good enough. You may reclaim some
memory back, but not much. A system shutdown and restart is required to
cure the problem. That means downtime.
Jesse F. Hughes
> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Are administrators supposed to spend their days periodically checking
>> the output of top on the server?
>
> Obviously not, and personally that's not how I'd do it. Instead I'd
> write a quick script or program to periodically look at /proc/meminfo,
> and mail or SMS the admin when memory levels become critical. Possibly
> combined with the creation of extra swap space in a regular file.
That's perfectly reasonable, of course, and I'd reckon a sysadmin
ought to be capable of doing that.
If Windows automatically notifies the admin of low memory, then that
may be a slight point in its favor, but not a decisive point at
all. It wouldn't even be a slight point if the notification is a popup
window on the server. Maybe someone can tell us *how* Windows
notifies the admin?
I just thought that both Daeron's and Marc's comments on "top" were,
well, odd.
--
"Do you know why I'm tall?" "Why?"
"Because I eat apples." "Do you know why I'm short?"
"Why?" "Because I'm a kid."
--Quincy P. Hughes (age almost 4) bests his father.
Marc
> Peter Jensen <use...@pekajemaps.homeip.net> writes:
>
>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
[snip]
>
> That's perfectly reasonable, of course, and I'd reckon a sysadmin
> ought to be capable of doing that.
>
> If Windows automatically notifies the admin of low memory, then that
> may be a slight point in its favor, but not a decisive point at
> all. It wouldn't even be a slight point if the notification is a popup
> window on the server. Maybe someone can tell us *how* Windows
> notifies the admin?
>
> I just thought that both Daeron's and Marc's comments on "top" were,
> well, odd.
My comments were flip, of course, but I used top because Dearon had, and
it's not an unreasonable tool to use, if used properly. However, we all
know there are a hundred and one ways of doing the same thing. The *real*
point of my post was the Linux admins the researchers had aquired to do
the benchmarking. My point was I do not believe they were quite the
calibre expected of a normal Linux administrator, quite probably, they
were totaly imaginary.
Jesse F. Hughes
> They are not describing any functionality. Its all bogus anyway. Linux
> (and *NIX) have top. It can be scripted to post alerts. Windows has a
> popup from the task bar warning of memory shortage. Not much use if the
> admin is not logged on. Windows also has the Performance logs, which can
> alert, usualy via a broadcast "net send" to the admins workstation.
Is it easier to configure Windows to broadcast the alert or to write a
script for Linux? Or are they just the same difficulty?
Many folks think that checking boxes is simpler than writing a script
(at the cost of flexibility, of course). Is that how you configure
Windows?
> In terms of functionality, they are both the same. If more functionality
> is required, third party management software is required. Any enterprise
> level server will come with that anyway, such as Dell openmanage, and HP
> (compaq) Insight Manager. Both now I believe provide agents for both
> Windows and Linux. They both provide all the alerts an admin ever needs.
>
> The article stated that Windows warned the admins that memory was low, and
> gave them time to act, and Linux did not, which meant downtime. That is a
> very bogus statement, if the Linux admins they picked knew anything at all
> about Linux or *nix in general, they would have had the competance to know
> when memory was short. Now, as far as I know, when Windows runs out of
> virtual memory, killing apps is not good enough. You may reclaim some
> memory back, but not much. A system shutdown and restart is required to
> cure the problem. That means downtime.
Thanks for the much more detailed reply. I understand your answer
concerning top better now (though top still seems an odd way to go,
doesn't it? As Peter suggested, why not /proc/meminfo instead of a
program designed for dynamically changing view of the system? Or is
top more flexible than I realize?).
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Maybe I screwed up on one of my assumptions [...]. Otherwise, um,
it's very easy to factor, and things are about to get really, really
weird." -- James S. Harris
Marc
> Marc <ma...@goaway.com> writes:
>
[snip]
>
> Is it easier to configure Windows to broadcast the alert or to write a
> script for Linux? Or are they just the same difficulty?
>
> Many folks think that checking boxes is simpler than writing a script
> (at the cost of flexibility, of course). Is that how you configure
> Windows?
>
That's a moot point. Telling windows to broadcast an alert is easy,
configuring Performance logs to be useful, is another thing altogether.
Honestly, I don't know any Windows admins who actually uses it. It's more
trouble than its worth and is an expensive memory and cpu hogger. On the
other hand, I know many Linux/*nix guys that will conjure up a light
weight script to monitor memory, cpu and hard disk useage. Windows is
strictly limited with what it can do by default, consequently reliance on
third party tools, utilities and applications (not free) is what they are
stuck with.
[snip]
>
> Thanks for the much more detailed reply. I understand your answer
> concerning top better now (though top still seems an odd way to go,
> doesn't it? As Peter suggested, why not /proc/meminfo instead of a
> program designed for dynamically changing view of the system? Or is
> top more flexible than I realize?).
See my answer in another reply.
Linønut
> Suppose you want to buy a jet airliner, nut. What brand do you buy?
A specious question, not worthy of an answer.
Linønut
>> .. As part of the study, 18 Linux and 18 Windows system administrators
>> were hired to run the simulated IT environments
>
> IOW, they picked 18 of the highest rated M$ Certified Professionals
> (probably from within their own crew) to administer the Windows systems
> and then went to the local shelter to find 18 "Linux Administrators".
I hope they gave the Linux Administrators some payment, in the form of
Thunderbird or Night Train.
Mark Kent
Marc <ma...@goaway.com> espoused:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:45:00 +0200, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Peter Jensen <use...@pekajemaps.homeip.net> writes:
>>
>>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>>
> [snip]
>>
>> That's perfectly reasonable, of course, and I'd reckon a sysadmin
>> ought to be capable of doing that.
>>
>> If Windows automatically notifies the admin of low memory, then that
>> may be a slight point in its favor, but not a decisive point at
>> all. It wouldn't even be a slight point if the notification is a popup
>> window on the server. Maybe someone can tell us *how* Windows
>> notifies the admin?
>>
>> I just thought that both Daeron's and Marc's comments on "top" were,
>> well, odd.
>
> My comments were flip, of course, but I used top because Dearon had, and
> it's not an unreasonable tool to use, if used properly. However, we all
> know there are a hundred and one ways of doing the same thing. The *real*
> point of my post was the Linux admins the researchers had aquired to do
> the benchmarking. My point was I do not believe they were quite the
> calibre expected of a normal Linux administrator, quite probably, they
> were totaly imaginary.
>
I'm sure they were highly imaginary. In fact, I'd suggest that what
they've done is look *really hard* to see if Windows can do anything
which Linux doesn't. The best they could find is a popup window which,
if you happen to be at the console, says "your system is running low on
virtual memory". Wow. I'd add the 'free' command to the list of ways
of doing this in Linux, btw. Perhaps with a baby-script, run in the
background, checking evey x seconds...
ratboy
windows. Look im only 14 but i seem to know that any software will be
anti - competive about other software that is endangering its money
makers.
and guess what bill gates said in the 1980's
"640k is enough ram for everyone", pretty sad when you compare it with
todays ram!
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
Just think, if airplanes crashed like Windows...
marc
[snip]
>
> You're right. It couldn't happen that each of them read Daeron's post
> and independently chose to respond. It's a conspiracy, but you
> cracked it!
It's a matter of opinion of course. If you are in the camp the that
believe MS pay people troll these shores, and a lot of us here do believe,
then they're appearance, at exactly the same time when Dearon, a very
well known anti MS poster, may appear a little more than odd.
However, it maybe pure coincidence, but on this occasion I think not.
--
Marc
Jesse F. Hughes
Er, yeah. Um, good point.
Not to start another interminable thread, but *when* and *where* did
he say that? You know, something more specific and verifiable than
"in the 1980's"?
Thanks.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"If the car stops and you're not getting out, then you have to start
it again." -- Quincy P. Hughes on his father's skills with a
manual transmission.
Jesse F. Hughes
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:39:53 +0200, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> You're right. It couldn't happen that each of them read Daeron's post
>> and independently chose to respond. It's a conspiracy, but you
>> cracked it!
>
> It's a matter of opinion of course. If you are in the camp the that
> believe MS pay people troll these shores, and a lot of us here do
> believe, then they're appearance, at exactly the same time when
> Dearon, a very well known anti MS poster, may appear a little more
> than odd.
>
> However, it maybe pure coincidence, but on this occasion I think
> not.
Even if I thought MS paid trolls to surf these waters, I would not
think that the fact three pro-Windows posters respond to Daeron is
odd or required coordination.
The thought that Microsoft pays morons like billwg, DFS and so on is
fairly laughable. The thought that they do so to respond to Daeron,
"a very well known anti MS poster", is even funnier.
I do think that Microsoft takes the threat of Linux seriously. I do
not think that they take the "threat" of COLA seriously and I do not
think they value the services of the local dorkball wintrolls.
--
"Eventually the truth will come out, and you know what I'll do then?
Probably go to the beach. I'll also hang out in some bars. Yup, I'll
definitely hang out in some bars, preferably near a beach."
-- JSH on the rewards of winning a mathematical revolution
Daeron
> Peter Jensen <use...@pekajemaps.homeip.net> writes:
>>> Are administrators supposed to spend their days
>>> periodically checking the output of top on the server?
No - they are not. And you know bloody well that's not the case. And I
specifically mentioned a SCRIPT. That you harp on my use of top is -
well odd. Do you have anything to say on the claims by Microsoft that
there is *no* low memory auditing tools in Linux.
>> Obviously not, and personally that's not how I'd do it.
>> Instead I'd write a quick script or program to periodically
>> look at /proc/meminfo, and mail or SMS the admin when memory
>> levels become critical. Possibly combined with the creation
>> of extra swap space in a regular file.
That is good. You could also look at the load averages as returned by
uptime. Or if you like to stare at graphics all day like a Windows
administrator use the standard Linux utility KSYSGUARD. Jesse F.: How
do you equate this with Micros~1 claim that you couldn't monitor memory
usage in Linux ?
> That's perfectly reasonable, of course, and I'd reckon a
> sysadmin ought to be capable of doing that.
<snip>
> I just thought that both Daeron's and Marc's comments
> on "top" were, well, odd.
Do you find it equally odd that a MS exective stated that you cannot
monitor low memory usage in Linux ????
<snip>
`But "top" doesn't seem to be the same functionality as they're
describing in any case ..' - Jesse F.
Still harping on top. Very well I'll humor you just this once. And
*they* are not describing anything as far as I can see from the
article.
I only mentioned `top' off the *top* of my head. I *did* specifically
mention a script to trigger an alert. One doesn't have to use only top.
There are a number of utilities that provide memory and load usage:
uptime, free, procinfo, top and vmstat. Apologies if I have left any
out.
As stated in the article the alleged problem is Linuxs' inability to
provide low memory information. This is patently untrue.
Now back to the script. The task is to provide an automated method of
reporting low memory and trigger an alert. The alert could be a warning
to the operator or the script could take action to recover memory. For
instance killing any processes that are hogging top for hours or days.
Or as Peter Jensen said above about increasing swap space.
The alert can also be programmed to send a SMS msg to a mobile phone so
you don't have to sit there staring at the screen for that dreaded `the
system is dangerously low on resources' msg that Windows throws up. By
which time it is too late to do anything except reboot.
----------------
resource auditing tools on Linux ..
uptime
free
procinfo
top
vmstat
ulimit
watch
ktop
ksysguard
$free | grep Mem | awk '{ print $4 }' .. returns a 4 digit number dddd
$procinfo | grep Bootup returns ..
Bootup: Thu Apr 7 09:39:32 2005 Load average: 0.01 0.16 0.40 3/93
3372
$man uptime
DESCRIPTION
uptime gives a one line display of the following informa-
tion. The current time, how long the system has been run-
ning, how many users are currently logged on, and the sys-
tem load averages for the past 1, 5, and 15 minutes.
...
You also need to monitor memory usage for the dreaded `Fork Bomb' if
your users are allowed shell access ..
$perl -e "fork while fork"
crash.sh
- cut -
#!/bin/bash
:(){ :|:&};:
- paste -
Prevention: add limits in /etc/security/limits.conf and/or etc/profile
sample /etc/security/limits.conf .. does *not* apply to user root.
# set a soft limit of 25 concurrent processes
* soft nproc 25
# set a hard limit of 50 concurrent processes
* hard nproc 50
# allow 3 concurrent logins
* - maxlogins 3
------
# some script I haven't written yet
$watch -n 600 free .. run free once every 10 minutes.
and email root if action is required ..
$some.script | mail -s "ALERT: low memory" ro...@linuxbox.com
else kill some processes and allocate some reserved memory ..
# end of script
------
`KSysguard is the KDE Task Manager and Performance Monitor ..'
http://docs.kde.org/en/3.4/kdebase/ksysguard/
`KTop is the KDE Task Manager. It .. features a processor load and
memory usage monitor ..'
`.. monit can .. stop a process if it uses to much resources.'
http://cvs.lp.se/doc/monit/monit.html#resource_testing
`Atop .. shows system-level activity related to the CPU, memory, swap
...'
http://freshmeat.net/projects/atop/
`GKrellM is a single process stack of system monitors which supports
applying themes to match its appearance to your window manager, Gtk, or
any other theme.'
http://members.dslextreme.com/users/billw/gkrellm/gkrellm.html
chrisv
>The thought that Microsoft pays morons like billwg, DFS and so on is
>fairly laughable. The thought that they do so to respond to Daeron,
>"a very well known anti MS poster", is even funnier.
>
>I do think that Microsoft takes the threat of Linux seriously. I do
>not think that they take the "threat" of COLA seriously and I do not
>think they value the services of the local dorkball wintrolls.
Yeah, if they were going to pay for the service it would have to be
someone at least semi-knowledgable, like Erik/GPFud.
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
Imagine if they designed airliners like Windows. Skyjacked in 20
minutes, crashed in 24 hours.
Richard Rasker
>
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>> Op Thu, 07 Apr 2005 01:08:32 +0000, schreef billwg:
>>
>> > Linønut wrote:
[snip]
>> >> Why do we put up with a situation in software that we would not
>> >> tolerate in manufacturing and dry goods?
>> > Suppose you want to buy a jet airliner, nut. What brand do you
>> > buy?
>> Well, sometimes days pass by without me buying airliners, but I can
>> choose between several well-known manufacturers (Airbus, Boeing, and
>> Douglas, to name just the most familiar ones), and even more smaller
>> ones.
>>
>> So what's your point - except that you make a very stupid comparison
>> between a commodity product like software, and some serious capital
>> investment such as a jet airliner?
> Imagine if they designed airliners like Windows. Skyjacked in 20
> minutes, crashed in 24 hours.
Wasn't there this US navy ship, doing the infamous "sitting duck"
manoeuvre, followed by the even more humiliating "being towed to
the dock" manoeuvre, all as a result of relying on a certain OS for
essential operational functions?
Jesse F. Hughes
I don't know much about GPF, but yeah, Erik is certainly slightly more
plausible candidate.
Nonetheless, I think that only a misplaced sense of self-importance
leads COLA members to think that MS pays folks to post here. COLA
surely matters not one whit, whether for influencing potential Linux
users or for testing various arguments on sample audiences. COLA is
just an odd spot to do anything like that.
At least, that's my honest take on it.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Yes, I'm one of those arrogant people who tries to be quotable.
There is actually at least one person who quotes me often."
-- James Harris
Jesse F. Hughes
>>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>> Peter Jensen <use...@pekajemaps.homeip.net> writes:
>
>>>> Are administrators supposed to spend their days
>>>> periodically checking the output of top on the server?
>
> No - they are not. And you know bloody well that's not the case. And I
> specifically mentioned a SCRIPT. That you harp on my use of top is -
> well odd. Do you have anything to say on the claims by Microsoft that
> there is *no* low memory auditing tools in Linux.
Well, sure. I have to agree with MS that there are no such tools
operating by default on Slackware[1]. I have to agree with Peter and
others (including you) that while there are no such tools
automatically enabled, it's trivial to write a script that serves the
purpose.
>>> Obviously not, and personally that's not how I'd do it.
>>> Instead I'd write a quick script or program to periodically
>>> look at /proc/meminfo, and mail or SMS the admin when memory
>>> levels become critical. Possibly combined with the creation
>>> of extra swap space in a regular file.
>
> That is good. You could also look at the load averages as returned by
> uptime. Or if you like to stare at graphics all day like a Windows
> administrator use the standard Linux utility KSYSGUARD. Jesse F.: How
> do you equate this with Micros~1 claim that you couldn't monitor memory
> usage in Linux ?
I didn't think they said that. The part you quoted was this:
"Also, Windows WARNED the administrators when the system was LOW ON
MEMORY, for example, allowing them to act, while the Linux system DID
NOT, resulting in system downtime, Taylor said."
That doesn't say that one *can't* monitor memory, as far as I can
tell. It says that (on my reading) Windows does it by default and
Linux doesn't.
>> That's perfectly reasonable, of course, and I'd reckon a
>> sysadmin ought to be capable of doing that.
>
> <snip>
>
>> I just thought that both Daeron's and Marc's comments
>> on "top" were, well, odd.
>
> Do you find it equally odd that a MS exective stated that you cannot
> monitor low memory usage in Linux ????
Did he say that? The passage is vague, but I don't read it that way.
>
> <snip>
>
> `But "top" doesn't seem to be the same functionality as they're
> describing in any case ..' - Jesse F.
>
> Still harping on top. Very well I'll humor you just this once. And
> *they* are not describing anything as far as I can see from the
> article.
>
> I only mentioned `top' off the *top* of my head. I *did* specifically
> mention a script to trigger an alert. One doesn't have to use only top.
> There are a number of utilities that provide memory and load usage:
> uptime, free, procinfo, top and vmstat. Apologies if I have left any
> out.
Fine. All of the basic utilities that can easily fit into a script
serve the purpose you suggest. Honestly, Daeron, sorry if I made a
mountain out of a molehill in this case, but your mention of top left
me bumfuzzled. I really didn't see how top provided comparable
functionality by itself.
(You did leave out my favorite monitor: gkrellm.)
Footnotes:
[1] I don't know other distros.
--
"It seems to me that in wartime Americans shouldn't be attacking each
other in this way on a *worldwide* forum. Then again, I know I'm an
American, but I have no way of knowing that you are, which would
explain a lot." --James Harris, on why Yanks should accept his proof
Tukla Ratte
> Microsoft gets more 'facts' for anti-Linux campaign
> Joris Evers April 06 2005 San Francisco -
>
> Microsoft Corp. is expanding its "Get the Facts" campaign against Linux
> by talking about the reliability of Windows versus Linux systems ..
< snip >
> Also, Windows WARNED the administrators when the system was LOW ON
> MEMORY, for example, allowing them to act, while the Linux system DID
> NOT, resulting in system downtime, Taylor said.
>
> [ ? ha ha haa ..
>
> I believe `top' might have something to do with it. And unlike the
> Micros'1 equivalent doesn't start counting from 20%.
I exhausted the VM on my old PC quite a few times. X turned dog slow,
but it never crashed. The OS certainly never crashed. I just switched
to a console and killed the offending processes. No downtime.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Tukla Ratte wrote:
> I exhausted the VM on my old PC quite a few times. X turned dog slow,
> but it never crashed. The OS certainly never crashed. I just
> switched to a console and killed the offending processes. No
> downtime.
I've once had a really huge compile eat up all my RAM and swap. X did
turn a bit slow, which alerted me to the problem. However, once there
actually wasn't enough VM left, the kernel just killed the offender. It
gave me a compiler error, but that's about it. Also no downtime.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCVaBFd1ZThqotgfgRAmdrAKC5F2WqNOcY2nioaAu/nrR6fJRRgACgnMW2
grGGbj8XlpXa+0jYc3MFZvo=
=ejoA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Q: God, root, what's the difference?
A: God can change the byte order on the CPU, root cannot.
Mark Kent
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> espoused:
I see a certain amount of television advertising and programming. I
have no idea why anyone would imagine that high IQ is remotely
required in public opinion forming/marketing.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, and have others, cola in itself is
not the issue, but in combination with all the talkback areas in
eg., zdnet, linux today, slashdot, cola, comxp and so on, then
there is more than enough to warrant a small team of people
posting at *all* levels of apparently intelligence.
Mark Kent
Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> espoused:
>
> Wasn't there this US navy ship, doing the infamous "sitting duck"
> manoeuvre, followed by the even more humiliating "being towed to
> the dock" manoeuvre, all as a result of relying on a certain OS for
> essential operational functions?
>
Yes, there was. Erik F spent months trying to explain it away,
just like billwg is trying to make out that Microsoft have never
done anything illegal or unethical. The names might change, but
the tune doesn't.
Mark Kent
Tukla Ratte <tukla...@tukla.net> espoused:
>
> I exhausted the VM on my old PC quite a few times. X turned dog slow,
> but it never crashed. The OS certainly never crashed. I just switched
> to a console and killed the offending processes. No downtime.
>
Snap. The article was so much rubbish.
DFS
> marc <goa...@nospam.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:39:53 +0200, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> You're right. It couldn't happen that each of them read Daeron's
>>> post and independently chose to respond. It's a conspiracy, but you
>>> cracked it!
>>
>> It's a matter of opinion of course. If you are in the camp the that
>> believe MS pay people troll these shores, and a lot of us here do
>> believe,
A lot of you, huh? Who?
>> then they're appearance, at exactly the same time when
>> Dearon, a very well known anti MS poster, may appear a little more
>> than odd.
>>
>> However, it maybe pure coincidence, but on this occasion I think
>> not.
You don't think, boy. Nor do you read cola very often.
> Even if I thought MS paid trolls to surf these waters, I would not
> think that the fact three pro-Windows posters respond to Daeron is
> odd or required coordination.
>
> The thought that Microsoft pays morons like billwg, DFS and so on is
> fairly laughable.
Sure. About as funny as the thought of anyone paying a moron like you.
> The thought that they do so to respond to Daeron,
> "a very well known anti MS poster", is even funnier.
I only responded 'cause his post contained the blanket lie that "MS forbids
benchmarks."
> I do think that Microsoft takes the threat of Linux seriously.
I would expect nothing less of them.
> I do
> not think that they take the "threat" of COLA seriously and I do not
> think they value the services of the local dorkball wintrolls.
Only some of us are dorkball wintrolls. billwg is not.
And you're right - MS could care less about this backwoods newsgroup full of
oddball liars and MS haters.
William Poaster
Kent was seen to write:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>>>The thought that Microsoft pays morons like billwg, DFS and so on is
>>>fairly laughable. The thought that they do so to respond to Daeron,
>>>"a very well known anti MS poster", is even funnier.
>>>
>>>I do think that Microsoft takes the threat of Linux seriously. I do
>>>not think that they take the "threat" of COLA seriously and I do not
>>>think they value the services of the local dorkball wintrolls.
>>
>> Yeah, if they were going to pay for the service it would have to be
>> someone at least semi-knowledgable, like Erik/GPFud.
>>
>
> I see a certain amount of television advertising and programming. I
> have no idea why anyone would imagine that high IQ is remotely
> required in public opinion forming/marketing.
>
> As I've mentioned elsewhere, and have others, cola in itself is
> not the issue, but in combination with all the talkback areas in
> eg., zdnet, linux today, slashdot, cola, comxp and so on, then
> there is more than enough to warrant a small team of people
> posting at *all* levels of apparently intelligence.
Well someone seems to take newsgroups like COLA seriously.
DiDiot has lashed out:-
"DiDio feels she has been unfairly criticised on open source forums,
including being nicknamed DiDiot, and has even had Linux advocates
contacting her at home."
She also denies anything to do with M$haft!
"Some of DiDio's critics have claimed that Yankee Group's surveys
comparing the total cost of ownership of Linux and Windows have been
funded by Microsoft. DiDio strongly denies this claim."
Well, she would, wouldn't she...
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194159,00.htm
--
Anyone that thinks Window is superior, well..
You can't explain somethings to stupid people...
-- bandit -- SuSE Linux Forums
Buford
> Robert Newson wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Daeron wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> [ The reason there is an absence of benchmarks
>>>> is that MICROSOFT FORBIDS THEM !!! ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Liar.
>> Really? would you care to explain this on Micro$oft's website:
>>
>>
>>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnnetdep/html/redisteula.asp
>>
>> In particular, this point:
>>
>> "You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET
>> Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without
>> Microsoft's prior written approval."
>>
>> I think you had better apologise to Daeron.
>
>
> I think NOT. That's ONE product out of the many hundreds MS sells.
Really? Just "ONE"? Here's a clause from Microsoft's SQL Server license
agreement:
"e. Benchmark Testing. You may not disclose the results of any benchmark
test of either the Server Software or Client Software to any third party
without Microsoft's prior written approval."
So that's TWO. I wonder if there are any others. I bet there are.
Hey, I found one or two more:
"Other Rights and Limitations on Use of Server Products-General.
Performance or Benchmark Testing. You may not disclose the results of any
benchmark test of either the Server Software or Client Software for
Microsoft SQL Server, Microsoft Exchange Server, Commerce Server, Host
Integration Server, Internet Security and Acceleration Server, BizTalk
Server, Application Center, Microsoft Transaction Server, Microsoft
Message Queue Server, Microsoft Internet Information Server, or Microsoft
Proxy Server to any third party without Microsoft's prior written
approval."
(http://msdnaa.oit.umass.edu/Neula.asp)
So that's SEVERAL MORE (caps yours). Do you think there might be one or
two others, DFS? I bet there are.
> Daeron, cola bozo that he is, put forth a blanket lie, and he knew it to
> be a lie when he posted it. If anyone should apologize, it's him.
No, it's you. Microsoft's standard procedure is to forbid disclosure of
benchmarks for its products. That's pretty widely known, DFS. I'm
surprised someone who knows as much about them as you do isn't aware of
that.
Buford
> Nonetheless, I think that only a misplaced sense of self-importance leads
> COLA members to think that MS pays folks to post here. COLA surely
> matters not one whit, whether for influencing potential Linux users or for
> testing various arguments on sample audiences. COLA is just an odd spot
> to do anything like that.
>
> At least, that's my honest take on it.
Mine, too...mostly. I do find it believable, though, that COLA could
appear on a list of "forums" for an astroturfer to monitor. ZDNet
Talkback, AOL forums, etc., are more likely places to find hired shills,
in my opinion, and in fact there have been a few Microsoft shills exposed
in those places over the years. But I wouldn't be surprised to find
several newsgroups on Joe Astroturfer's To-Do list, with COLA
somewhere in there.
DFS
That quote is from the MSDN license agreement, not from the individual
product licenses.
I checked some products here http://www.microsoft.com/legal/useterms/ by
viewing the .pdf file and searching for the word 'benchmark.'
The SQL Server 2000 Standard does require permission to publish benchmarks
The Commerce Server 2002 Enterprise edition license does require permission
to publish benchmarks.
The Visual Studio .NET Pro license requires permission to reveal benchmarks
of the .NET framework component only.
The BizTalk Server license does require permission to publish benchmarks.
The ISA 2004 Standard license does require permission to publish benchmarks.
The Content Management Server 2002 Enterprise license does require
permission to publish benchmarks.
The Windows XP Pro license does not preclude revealing benchmarks
The Windows Server 2003 license does not preclude revealing benchmarks.
The Exchange Server 2003 standard license does not preclude revealing
benchmarks.
The Virtual PC 2004 license does not preclude revealing benchmarks.
The Access 2003 license does not preclude revealing benchmarks.
The Windows Services for Unix 3.0 license does not preclude revealing
benchmarks.
The Services for Netware 5.0 license does not preclude revealing benchmarks.
I tried to pick OS, networking, and db products. There are lots more in the
list.
>> Daeron, cola bozo that he is, put forth a blanket lie, and he knew
>> it to be a lie when he posted it. If anyone should apologize, it's
>> him.
>
> No, it's you. Microsoft's standard procedure is to forbid disclosure
> of benchmarks for its products. That's pretty widely known, DFS.
It's not widely known. It's widely _stated_, but only on cola or by lying
Linux liars and MS haters.
Here on cola we get liar bozos like Daeron claiming MS forbids benchmarking
altogether, when the truth is they allow benchmarks to be published for many
of their products, and for others they require permission.
> I'm surprised someone who knows as much about them as you do isn't aware
> of that.
I'm not surprised you would defend Daeron's ignorance.
Sinister Midget
On 2005-04-07, quoth Jesse F. Hughes <je...@phiwumbda.org>:
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>>>The thought that Microsoft pays morons like billwg, DFS and so on is
>>>fairly laughable. The thought that they do so to respond to Daeron,
>>>"a very well known anti MS poster", is even funnier.
>>>
>>>I do think that Microsoft takes the threat of Linux seriously. I do
>>>not think that they take the "threat" of COLA seriously and I do not
>>>think they value the services of the local dorkball wintrolls.
>>
>> Yeah, if they were going to pay for the service it would have to be
>> someone at least semi-knowledgable, like Erik/GPFud.
>>
>
> I don't know much about GPF, but yeah, Erik is certainly slightly more
> plausible candidate.
>
> Nonetheless, I think that only a misplaced sense of self-importance
> leads COLA members to think that MS pays folks to post here. COLA
> surely matters not one whit, whether for influencing potential Linux
> users or for testing various arguments on sample audiences. COLA is
> just an odd spot to do anything like that.
I think a better assumption isn't that MICROS~1 pays people to troll
COLA, but that the paid trolls also happen to troll COLA. Some may
stick in one place for awhile, even in COLA. Others may go to multiple
groups. Still others could show up on mailing lists or some
combination of lists, newsgroups, open forums, blogs, etc.
Phony grass-roots games can't be played reliably with aiming at a
single target, like usenet. It requires multiple targets, all seeming
to be unrelated, by people who don't even know of the existence of each
other. If some happen to know and/or recognize each other, /that/ would
most likely be coincidence.
> At least, that's my honest take on it.
There's mine. I suspect one or more are paid trolls. I don't presume
this to be their only playground. In fact, they /could/ even be paid
trolls-in-training FAIK.
--
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work _at_ it. To mess up a
Windows box, you need to work _on_ it.
Mark Kent
Buford <buf...@my.house> espoused:
I can think of at least one who started in cola and moved on to
slashdot.
Most of the arguments which Microsoft have used against Linux have
appeared in this group first, as well as in Linux Today, Slashdot, Zdnet,
and elsewhere. One of the key things to consider is that cola is
probably easier to search than any of the other fora, due to google,
and previously deja.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
It gets late early out there.
-- Yogi Berra
Mark Kent
William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
I wonder what she would consider fair criticism to be. I'm not
sure that contacting her at home is a particularly great idea.
>
> She also denies anything to do with M$haft!
> "Some of DiDio's critics have claimed that Yankee Group's surveys
> comparing the total cost of ownership of Linux and Windows have been
> funded by Microsoft. DiDio strongly denies this claim."
> Well, she would, wouldn't she...
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194159,00.htm
>
Haha! That's funny. I wonder if Laura can explain why the TCO of
Linux has moved from 'much higher than Windows' to 'the same as
windows' in such a short time?
Anyone who believes that Microsoft do not take the criticisms made
in public fora seriously is being naive, in my view.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Mark Kent
Jesse F. Hughes <je...@phiwumbda.org> espoused:
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>>>The thought that Microsoft pays morons like billwg, DFS and so on is
>>>fairly laughable. The thought that they do so to respond to Daeron,
>>>"a very well known anti MS poster", is even funnier.
>>>
>>>I do think that Microsoft takes the threat of Linux seriously. I do
>>>not think that they take the "threat" of COLA seriously and I do not
>>>think they value the services of the local dorkball wintrolls.
>>
>> Yeah, if they were going to pay for the service it would have to be
>> someone at least semi-knowledgable, like Erik/GPFud.
>>
>
> I don't know much about GPF, but yeah, Erik is certainly slightly more
> plausible candidate.
>
> Nonetheless, I think that only a misplaced sense of self-importance
> leads COLA members to think that MS pays folks to post here. COLA
> surely matters not one whit, whether for influencing potential Linux
> users or for testing various arguments on sample audiences. COLA is
> just an odd spot to do anything like that.
You have a seriously misplaced sense of self-importance if you think that
this is about you, it's *not*, it's about Microsoft's PR. Cola matters
a great deal, in that it's a part of the swathe of public fora on which
free software is debated. If you think Microsoft are not interested in
the progress of free software, then you are stunning naive. Ballmer has
personaly stated that Linux is Microsoft's greatest threat.
>
> At least, that's my honest take on it.
>
Don't be so self-centred! This is not about *you*!
Sinister Midget
On 2005-04-07, quoth Jesse F. Hughes <je...@phiwumbda.org>:
> I didn't think they said that. The part you quoted was this:
>
> "Also, Windows WARNED the administrators when the system was LOW ON
> MEMORY, for example, allowing them to act, while the Linux system DID
> NOT, resulting in system downtime, Taylor said."
>
> That doesn't say that one *can't* monitor memory, as far as I can
> tell. It says that (on my reading) Windows does it by default and
> Linux doesn't.
I don't see "default" there, do you? I don't know (nor care) if
Windwoes does/can do it by default. The intended /impression/ is that
linux isn't as functional because it lacks the capability. The
/language/ used is to allow wiggle room in the event someone proves
them to be dishonest.
It seems to be working.
--
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
Kier
Not to mention stupid lying trolls like you.
--
Kier
Jesse F. Hughes
>> Nonetheless, I think that only a misplaced sense of self-importance
>> leads COLA members to think that MS pays folks to post here. COLA
>> surely matters not one whit, whether for influencing potential Linux
>> users or for testing various arguments on sample audiences. COLA is
>> just an odd spot to do anything like that.
>
> You have a seriously misplaced sense of self-importance if you think that
> this is about you, it's *not*, it's about Microsoft's PR. Cola matters
> a great deal, in that it's a part of the swathe of public fora on which
> free software is debated.
This is exactly what I mean when I say misplaced sense of
self-importance. COLA does not matter a great deal or even some, as
far as I can tell.
> If you think Microsoft are not interested in the progress of free
> software, then you are stunning naive. Ballmer has personaly stated
> that Linux is Microsoft's greatest threat.
Yeah. So? What has that to do with COLA?
Sorry, I'm utterly unpersuaded that Microsoft would fund any wintrolls
in COLA. It makes no sense.
I *do* acknowledge that MS has been caught in astroturf campaigns in
the past and I also believe that they are likely to do it again and
maybe even are doing it now.
I just don't think that they're silly enough to throw money into
influencing an unimportant forum like this one.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Such behaviour is exclusively confined to functions invented by
mathematicians for the sake of causing trouble."
-Albert Eagle's _A Practical Treatise on Fourier's Theorem_
William Poaster
Kent was seen to write:
> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
>> begin fcukyou.vbs It was on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:31:19 +0100, that Mark
>> Kent was seen to write:
<snip>
>>> As I've mentioned elsewhere, and have others, cola in itself is
>>> not the issue, but in combination with all the talkback areas in
>>> eg., zdnet, linux today, slashdot, cola, comxp and so on, then
>>> there is more than enough to warrant a small team of people
>>> posting at *all* levels of apparently intelligence.
>>
>> Well someone seems to take newsgroups like COLA seriously.
>> DiDiot has lashed out:-
>> "DiDio feels she has been unfairly criticised on open source forums,
>> including being nicknamed DiDiot, and has even had Linux advocates
>> contacting her at home."
>
> I wonder what she would consider fair criticism to be. I'm not
> sure that contacting her at home is a particularly great idea.
>
>> She also denies anything to do with M$haft!
>> "Some of DiDio's critics have claimed that Yankee Group's surveys
>> comparing the total cost of ownership of Linux and Windows have been
>> funded by Microsoft. DiDio strongly denies this claim."
>> Well, she would, wouldn't she...
>>
>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39194159,00.htm
>>
>
> Haha! That's funny. I wonder if Laura can explain why the TCO of
> Linux has moved from 'much higher than Windows' to 'the same as
> windows' in such a short time?
Pretty swift change there, huh!
> Anyone who believes that Microsoft do not take the criticisms made
> in public fora seriously is being naive, in my view.
I agree, but just watch the wintrolls deny it...& the more they deny
it.., well it makes you wonder.
Jesse F. Hughes
> begin fcukyou.vbs It was on Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:04:08 +0100, that Mark
> Kent was seen to write:
>
>> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
>>> begin fcukyou.vbs It was on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:31:19 +0100, that Mark
>>> Kent was seen to write:
>
> <snip>
>>>> As I've mentioned elsewhere, and have others, cola in itself is
>>>> not the issue, but in combination with all the talkback areas in
>>>> eg., zdnet, linux today, slashdot, cola, comxp and so on, then
>>>> there is more than enough to warrant a small team of people
>>>> posting at *all* levels of apparently intelligence.
>>>
>>> Well someone seems to take newsgroups like COLA seriously.
>>> DiDiot has lashed out:-
>>> "DiDio feels she has been unfairly criticised on open source forums,
>>> including being nicknamed DiDiot, and has even had Linux advocates
>>> contacting her at home."
[...]
>
> I agree, but just watch the wintrolls deny it...& the more they deny
> it.., well it makes you wonder.
Re-read your quote. She doesn't claim to take "newsgroups like COLA
seriously". The paraphrase mentions open source forums, but there are
many rather more visible open source forums than COLA.
That quotation adds utterly no evidence to the claim that MS pays
wintrolls for their COLA activity and it adds no plausibility in my
eyes.
As far as whether wintrolls deny it, well, I haven't seen any of the
usual suspects enter into this discussion.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Had you told it like it was, it wouldn't be like it is."
-- Albert King
Daeron
> Re-read your quote. She doesn't claim to take "newsgroup
> like COLA seriously". The paraphrase mentions open source forums,
> but there are many rather more visible open source forums than COLA.
Rereading what William Poaster actually said:
`Well someone seems to take newsgroups like COLA seriously'
and the original quote from zdnet
`DiDio feels she has been unfairly criticised on open source forums'
William Poaster made a perfectly valid point. He never claimed that
COLA was the top open source forum. DiDio feels she has been unfairly
criticised on open source forums and COLA is an open source forum. And
DiDio has been criticised on COLA. Therefore someone must be reading
it.
> That quotation adds utterly no evidence to the claim that MS
> pays wintrolls for their COLA activity and it adds no plausibility
> in my eyes.
Do you seriously think there would be any evidence. Especially after
the infamous Astroturf campaign. And why is it that anyone mentions
paid trolls there is a flurry of objections ;)
..
`Ballmer has personaly stated that Linux is Microsoft's greatest
threat.'
- Mark Kent
`Yeah. So? What has that to do with COLA?' - Jesse F.
OK - go ahead and tell us all why it is *nothing* to do with COLA.
Daeron
>> Do you find it equally odd that a MS exective stated that you
>> cannot monitor low memory usage in Linux ????
> Did he say that? The passage is vague, but I don't read it that way.
OK - Tell us all what *you* read as his real meaning.
What msg was he vaguely trying to bring across ?
OH - wait you said he is being vague and therefore you cannot hazard an
opinion. Yet you have no difficulty in picking up on my use of a single
word.
<snip>
> Fine. All of the basic utilities that can easily fit into a
> script serve the purpose you suggest. Honestly, Daeron,
> sorry if I made a mountain out of a molehill in this case,
> but your mention of top left me bumfuzzled. I really didn't
> see how top provided comparable functionality by itself.
I never said top can provide comparitive functionality by itself - and
you know it. In the context of the original article and its claim that
there were no low memory checker on Linux I gave TOP a mentioned.
Top can be used to provide information about what process are hoging
the system. Such information in conjunction with other tools can be
used by the operator or an automated script to take action. I'm puzzled
that a man of your intellect can't seem to figure this out. It isn't
rocket science, you know.
> (You did leave out my favorite monitor: gkrellm.)
<quote>
GKrellM is a single process stack of system monitors which supports
applying themes to match its appearance to your window manager, Gtk, or
any other theme.'
<unquote>
What do you think of MS that Linux has no comparitive memory monitoring
tools compared to Windows. He didn't say by default or graphical - he
just said NONE.
If you must grace this thread with your typing then at least have the
integrity to stick to the topic.
Jesse F. Hughes
> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Re-read your quote. She doesn't claim to take "newsgroup
>> like COLA seriously". The paraphrase mentions open source forums,
>> but there are many rather more visible open source forums than COLA.
>
> Rereading what William Poaster actually said:
>
> `Well someone seems to take newsgroups like COLA seriously'
>
> and the original quote from zdnet
>
> `DiDio feels she has been unfairly criticised on open source forums'
>
> William Poaster made a perfectly valid point. He never claimed that
> COLA was the top open source forum. DiDio feels she has been unfairly
> criticised on open source forums and COLA is an open source forum.
"Open source forum" is not synonymous with newsgroups.
> And DiDio has been criticised on COLA. Therefore someone must be
> reading it.
Huh? That doesn't follow. All that we know is
(1) the quote mentions some open source forums where Didio has been
criticized and
(2) COLA is an open source forum where Didio has been criticized.
It does not follow that Didio has been reading COLA or any other
"newsgroup like COLA". There are plenty of rather higher profile open
source forums (Slashdot, Groklaw, etc.) that explain the quote
adequately and more plausibly.
>> That quotation adds utterly no evidence to the claim that MS
>> pays wintrolls for their COLA activity and it adds no plausibility
>> in my eyes.
>
> Do you seriously think there would be any evidence. Especially after
> the infamous Astroturf campaign. And why is it that anyone mentions
> paid trolls there is a flurry of objections ;)
Aside from Kier and me, I haven't noticed a flurry of objections. Are
you suggesting (again) that I'm on Microsoft's dole?
> `Ballmer has personaly stated that Linux is Microsoft's greatest
> threat.'
> - Mark Kent
>
> `Yeah. So? What has that to do with COLA?' - Jesse F.
>
> OK - go ahead and tell us all why it is *nothing* to do with COLA.
Because COLA is unimportant. I thought I made that clear. I just
can't imagine any reason why Microsoft would care about this little
backwater, no matter how diverting you and I find it.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
Jesse: Quincy, you should trust me more.
Quincy (age 4): Baba, I never trust you. And I've got good reasons.
Jesse F. Hughes
> Jesse F. Hughes writes:
>
>>> Do you find it equally odd that a MS exective stated that you
>>> cannot monitor low memory usage in Linux ????
>
>> Did he say that? The passage is vague, but I don't read it that way.
>
>
> OK - Tell us all what *you* read as his real meaning.
> What MSG was he vaguely trying to bring across ?
I told you in the part you snipped. My reading is tentative, to be
sure, and I won't say your reading is wrong. But it's not how I read
the passage. Here's what I wrote.
>> "Also, Windows WARNED the administrators when the system was LOW ON
>> MEMORY, for example, allowing them to act, while the Linux system DID
>> NOT, resulting in system downtime, Taylor said."
>> That doesn't say that one *can't* monitor memory, as far as I can
>> tell. It says that (on my reading) Windows does it by default and
>> Linux doesn't.
> OH - wait you said he is being vague and therefore you cannot hazard an
> opinion. Yet you have no difficulty in picking up on my use of a single
> word.
Your reference to a particular application, you mean. Anyway, I did
hazard an opinion, but you snipped it. Not the most honest response
I've seen.
>> Fine. All of the basic utilities that can easily fit into a
>> script serve the purpose you suggest. Honestly, Daeron,
>> sorry if I made a mountain out of a molehill in this case,
>> but your mention of top left me bumfuzzled. I really didn't
>> see how top provided comparable functionality by itself.
>
> I never said top can provide comparitive functionality by itself - and
> you know it. In the context of the original article and its claim that
> there were no low memory checker on Linux I gave TOP a mentioned.
>
> Top can be used to provide information about what process are hoging
> the system. Such information in conjunction with other tools can be
> used by the operator or an automated script to take action. I'm puzzled
> that a man of your intellect can't seem to figure this out. It isn't
> rocket science, you know.
I really don't see the point of continuing this topic. I explained my
response (which I made only after a second person explicitly mentioned
top as a comparable utility) and I'm satisfied with the fact that
Linux does indeed have plenty of monitoring options (but none of them
automatically alert admins out-of-the-box, at least not on
Slackware). I even said sorry for letting this tangent get blown out
of proportion. Let's let it die, shall we?
> If you must grace this thread with your typing then at least have the
> integrity to stick to the topic.
Don't lecture me about integrity, asshole. Not in the same post that
you snip my stated opinion and then claim I don't have one.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Why do the dirty villains always have to tie your hands *behind* ya?"
"That's what makes them villains."
--Adventures by Morse (old radio show)
Jesse F. Hughes
> It does not follow that Didio has been reading COLA or any other
> "newsgroup like COLA". There are plenty of rather higher profile open
> source forums (Slashdot, Groklaw, etc.) that explain the quote
> adequately and more plausibly.
Let me clarify, however: Didio may well have been referring to COLA,
or she may not. Nothing in the article persuades me that she was, but
if I were her, I reckon I'd google on my own name and see what people
were saying. Doing so might well lead her to COLA.
My point was that the quoted passage did not prove she meant COLA or
that she treats COLA seriously and it surely does not add evidence
that Microsoft astroturfs in our own particular backwater[1].
Footnotes:
[1] Mixed Metaphors R Us.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I talk with bigger fish who are playing different games."
-- James S Harris has a way with the metaphor.
marc
> marc <goa...@nospam.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:39:53 +0200, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> You're right. It couldn't happen that each of them read Daeron's post
>>> and independently chose to respond. It's a conspiracy, but you
>>> cracked it!
>>
>> It's a matter of opinion of course. If you are in the camp the that
>> believe MS pay people troll these shores, and a lot of us here do
>> believe, then they're appearance, at exactly the same time when
>> Dearon, a very well known anti MS poster, may appear a little more
>> than odd.
>>
>> However, it maybe pure coincidence, but on this occasion I think
>> not.
>
> Even if I thought MS paid trolls to surf these waters, I would not
> think that the fact three pro-Windows posters respond to Daeron is
> odd or required coordination.
>
> The thought that Microsoft pays morons like billwg, DFS and so on is
> fairly laughable. The thought that they do so to respond to Daeron,
> "a very well known anti MS poster", is even funnier.
>
> I do think that Microsoft takes the threat of Linux seriously. I do
> not think that they take the "threat" of COLA seriously and I do not
> think they value the services of the local dorkball wintrolls.
I started this long sub thread with my flippant comments. So let me try
and finish it with something a little more detailed, to try and clarify
what I meant.
I do not think for one instant Microsoft view COLA *on its own* as any
particular threat. It's just one of many forums where they need to plant
FUD. Why? Because of google searches that's why. I have stated this
before. It does not matter one little bit that what these people say is
total bullshit, and that people like you and me recognise it as such. Its
enough to ensure that when someone, for example, type "linux blah blah"
on google groups, the searches returns FUD to be planted into the minds of
untrained observers.
So, Dearon posts an article that shows Microsoft, again, in a very bad
light. Up pops billwg, DFS and windows_mvp to shout "LIAR, blah blah
blah"! and include comments try to show otherwise. These people are
clowns, yes. But everything they say will appear forever in the google
archives. And that, in effect, is job done.
COLA is itself a perfect training ground for the astroturfer, before going
on to some other forums, which Microsoft consider a much bigger threat.
--
Marc
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
DFS
> I do not think for one instant Microsoft view COLA *on its own* as any
> particular threat. It's just one of many forums where they need to
> plant FUD. Why? Because of google searches that's why. I have
> stated this before. It does not matter one little bit that what
> these people say is total bullshit, and that people like you and me
> recognise it as such. Its enough to ensure that when someone, for
> example, type "linux blah blah" on google groups, the searches
> returns FUD to be planted into the minds of untrained observers.
>
> So, Dearon posts an article that shows Microsoft, again, in a very bad
light.
No it didn't. It showed:
1) Daeron to be the continual liar he always has been when talking about MS.
He can scarcely make a comment about MS that isn't a lie or an insult. The
same is true for most cola bozos.
2) another Linux shortcoming (having to manually configure the system to
show resource usage).
> Up pops billwg, DFS and windows_mvp to shout "LIAR, blah blah
> blah"! and include comments try to show otherwise.
There's no trying. There is only otherwise.
> These people are
> clowns, yes. But everything they say will appear forever in the
> google archives. And that, in effect, is job done.
Good. cola lies need to be refuted.
> COLA is itself a perfect training ground for the astroturfer, before
> going on to some other forums, which Microsoft consider a much bigger
> threat.
ha! "training ground"? Are you out of your mind?
Marc
[snip]
>
> 2) another Linux shortcoming (having to manually configure the system to
> show resource usage).
>
Please explain to me how you don't have to manually configure performance
logs. Other than that, a popup from the task bar is no bloody use to
anyone if the administrator is not logged on.
>
>
[snip]
Daeron
> Liar
------
Microsoft Licensing Product Use Rights
[...]
C. Benchmark Testing.
You may not without Microsoft's prior written approval disclose to any
third party the results of any benchmark test of the following:
Application Center, BizTalk, Biztalk Adaptor for MQSeries, Biztalk
Accelerator for Financial Services, Biztalk Accelerator for HIPAA,
Biztalk Accelerator for Suppliers, Biztalk Accelerator RosettaNet,
Biztalk Adaptor for SAP, Content Management Server, Commerce Server,
HIS, Identity Integration Server, Project Server, SQL Server, or
Transaction Server or any related client software, the .NET Framework
component of Windows Server 2003 (32-bit version), Exchange Server
2003, Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server and Windows Small
Business Server 2003, or the SQL Server, BizTalk Server or ISA Server
portions of Windows Small Business Server, Premium Edition.
D. Other Rights and Limitations for Certain Software.
1. General
a. Benchmarking Performance or Benchmark Testing.
You may not disclose the results of any benchmark testing regarding the
Microsoft Server Software, Device Software, or the .NET Framework to
any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.
[ see also from earlier on in the document ]
2. Derivative Works: Redistribution Rights.
.. You may reproduce, sublicense and distribute the Components (and any
modifications thereto made by uou) provided that you agree: .. (b) to
indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any
claims or lawsuits including attorneys' fees and costs ..
[See also]
j. Use of internet-based services features.
.. You acknowlege andagree that we or our affiliates may automatically
check the version of XPe and/or its components that you are utilizing
and may provide upgrades or supplements to XPe that may be
automatically downloaded ot your Embedded System.
[See also]
n. Open Source code software
(i) For the purposes of this Section, `Excluded License' means any
license that requires, as a condition of use, modification and/or
distribution of software subject to the Excluded License, that such
software or other software combined and/or distributed in source code
form; (B) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (C)
redistributable at no charge.
(ii) Your license to XPe specifically excludes any license, right,
power or authority to subject XPe or derivative works therof in whole
or in part to any terms of an Excluded License. Without limiting the
generality of the preceding sentence, you do not have any license,
right power or authority to (A) create derivative works of XPe in any
manner that would cause XPe or derative works thereof in whole or in
aper to become subject to any of the terms of an Excluded License; or
(B) distribute XPe or derative works thereof in any manner that would
cause XPe or derative works thereof in whole or in part to become
subject to any of the terms of an Excluded License. You shall not take
any action inconsistent with this excclusion.
(iii) You shall indemnify and hold us or our suppliers harmless from
and against all damages, including, without limitation, attorneys'
fees, arising from or related to your or your affiliates' breech of
this section ...
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/australia/licensing/PUR.pdf
Mark Kent
marc <goa...@nospam.com> espoused:
>
> I started this long sub thread with my flippant comments. So let me try
> and finish it with something a little more detailed, to try and clarify
> what I meant.
>
> I do not think for one instant Microsoft view COLA *on its own* as any
> particular threat. It's just one of many forums where they need to plant
> FUD. Why? Because of google searches that's why. I have stated this
> before. It does not matter one little bit that what these people say is
> total bullshit, and that people like you and me recognise it as such. Its
> enough to ensure that when someone, for example, type "linux blah blah"
> on google groups, the searches returns FUD to be planted into the minds of
> untrained observers.
This is precisely my view, too. Cola alone is truly not significant,
but then, neither is zdnet nor linux today nor wheverever. What makes
them important is google, because google crawls over all of them,
gathering data, ready to respond to a query. It cares not what the
quality of the data is, merely that the appropriate words are present.
>
> So, Dearon posts an article that shows Microsoft, again, in a very bad
> light. Up pops billwg, DFS and windows_mvp to shout "LIAR, blah blah
> blah"! and include comments try to show otherwise. These people are
> clowns, yes. But everything they say will appear forever in the google
> archives. And that, in effect, is job done.
Yes. Job done. Incidentally, this is also why I think feeding the
trolls is such a bad idea, because it creates even *more* hits, by
providing them with an additional platform to present their fud.
>
> COLA is itself a perfect training ground for the astroturfer, before going
> on to some other forums, which Microsoft consider a much bigger threat.
>
I've seen at least one move from cola to slashdot. I'd rate that as
a promotion. Isn't it wonderful to know that we're the lowest of the low?
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
A large number of installed systems work by fiat. That is, they work
by being declared to work.
-- Anatol Holt
ratboy
cost's free but had to pay for it.
ratboy
my heart when it isnt or either are you a paranoid nerd who has nothing
to do except praise microshit when it isnt good. I USE microshit
because i dont have a fucken cd burner so i cant burn a linux os but
when i do i will get a linux os on my comp. Get with the flow, people
only use windows as OEM retaillers are forced to preinstall it on their
comps- yes i read their agreements and i can read. That is how
microshit came to be so powerful, take that into account before you
attack alternate os's and for god sake do that. People only use
alternate os/s as they dont like microshit
Mark Kent
ratboy <coli...@gmail.com> espoused:
???
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
He who renders warfare fatal to all engaged in it will be the greatest
benefactor the world has yet known.
-- Sir Richard Burton
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
04/06/2005
at 11:54 AM, windo...@yahoo.com said:
>"all paid for by Microsoft"? You're a pathetic liar,
PKB.
>you pull all kinds of stupid stories out of your ass.
Talking to yourself?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org