[News] Another Example of Superior Performance in GNU/Linux
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| Apache Tomcat is a very common application server in java-based solutions and
| it is able to run on every platform supported by Sun Java. But which platform
| delivers most performance and stability; Microsoft Windows or Linux.
| According to this performance study part 2, Linux significantly outperforms
| Microsoft Windows.
`----
http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
Recent:
Windows vs Linux Benchmarks with Matlab
,----[ Quote ]
| Considering the hardware is identical, that difference is HUGE. And all
| because of all the screwups Microsoft have made, Vista might well be the
| biggest! (I should really test Windows XP. I would guess it's about 10-15%
| faster than Vista, but still 15% or more slower than Linux)
`----
http://www.antonywilliams.com/2007/12/windows-vs-linux-benchmarks-with-matlab.html
Related:
ATI: Linux vs. Windows Vista
,----[ Quote ]
| Wow! We were completely blown away when our final results came in and the
| Linux 8.42.3 driver had outperformed Windows Vista with Catalyst 7.10 in
| Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. It wasn't just a neck-and-neck race but Linux
| was about 10 frames per second faster when running at 1280 x 1024 and 1680 x
| 1050.
`----
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=897&num=3
SL Speed Showdown: Linux Tops Windoze
,----[ Quote ]
| This was not a scientific study - only a small test which confirmed what I
| thought I had "felt" already while using Second Life on my new PC.
`----
http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2007/07/sl-speed-showdo.html
[Microsoft MVP] Foray into Feisty Fawn helped me take back my MIPS
,----[ Quote ]
| Long story short - World of Warcraft runs faster under Ubuntu/Wine than
| natively under Windows XP Professional.
`----
Rex Ballard
wrote:
> Tomcat Performance: Linux faster than Windows
[snip numerous excellent benchmark references]
Looks like there were several benchmarks showing that Linux is blowing
Windows out of the water in industry standard benchmarks.
Cache these entries quick, because it won't be long before Microsoft
makes them "disappear" and has the bench-marker retest and republish
what Microsoft wants (since they didn't get prior written approval
from Microsoft to publish these entries).
Great job again Roy
Roy Schestowitz
> On Jan 12, 10:37 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com>
> wrote:
>> Tomcat Performance: Linux faster than Windows
>
> [snip numerous excellent benchmark references]
>
> Looks like there were several benchmarks showing that Linux is blowing
> Windows out of the water in industry standard benchmarks.
Vista and its sister Longhorn (WS08) make things a helluva lot worse, based on
what I've read so far. Remember Gutmann's analogy which involves
athletes 'running' on crutches.
> Cache these entries quick, because it won't be long before Microsoft
> makes them "disappear" and has the bench-marker retest and republish
> what Microsoft wants (since they didn't get prior written approval
> from Microsoft to publish these entries).
I have references to show them doing this.
> Great job again Roy
Thanks. Coming from you, this means a lot.
--
~~ Best of wishes
"We have increased our prices over the last 10 years (while) other component
prices have come down and continue to come down."
--Joachim Kempin, Microsoft
Tim Smith
<923126f2-ebb9-4992...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Rex Ballard <rex.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cache these entries quick, because it won't be long before Microsoft
> makes them "disappear" and has the bench-marker retest and republish
> what Microsoft wants (since they didn't get prior written approval
> from Microsoft to publish these entries).
Why would they need Microsoft's permission to publish a Tomcat benchmark?
--
--Tim Smith
Linonut
> Tomcat Performance: Linux faster than Windows
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Apache Tomcat is a very common application server in java-based solutions and
>| it is able to run on every platform supported by Sun Java. But which platform
>| delivers most performance and stability; Microsoft Windows or Linux.
>| According to this performance study part 2, Linux significantly outperforms
>| Microsoft Windows.
> `----
>
> http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
At last, a comparison that at least uses a scatter plot.
That Error/Second plot is pretty incredible. How can Windows (or any
OS) cause a service to have such an incredible error rate?
--
Good-bye. I am leaving because I am bored.
-- George Saunders' dying words
Linonut
Because it is actually an OS benchmark?
--
It's hard to tune heavily tuned code. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <1998011417...@wall.org>
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
>
> Why would they need Microsoft's permission to publish a Tomcat benchmark?
I suppose if they are running Tomcat on Windows it might fall under
the benchmarking clauses of the Windows EULA. There is certainly
nothing stopping MS from making legal threats on those grounds,
even if it would ultimately not stand up in court. Considering how
expensive it can be to respond to even a meritless claim, it would be
an effective strategy.
Having spent a few thousand defending a trademark against this sort
of legal saber rattling, I wouldn't count it out.
Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Moshe Goldfarb
> ____/ Rex Ballard on Sunday 13 January 2008 06:55 : \____
>
>> On Jan 12, 10:37 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Tomcat Performance: Linux faster than Windows
>>
>> [snip numerous excellent benchmark references]
>>
>> Looks like there were several benchmarks showing that Linux is blowing
>> Windows out of the water in industry standard benchmarks.
>
> Vista and its sister Longhorn (WS08) make things a helluva lot worse, based on
> what I've read so far. Remember Gutmann's analogy which involves
> athletes 'running' on crutches.
>
>> Cache these entries quick, because it won't be long before Microsoft
>> makes them "disappear" and has the bench-marker retest and republish
>> what Microsoft wants (since they didn't get prior written approval
>> from Microsoft to publish these entries).
>
> I have references to show them doing this.
>
>> Great job again Roy
>
> Thanks. Coming from you, this means a lot.
Holy shit Batboob!
I'm going to frame this one!
The insane leading the insane.
DFS
>> http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
>
> At last, a comparison that at least uses a scatter plot.
>
> That Error/Second plot is pretty incredible. How can Windows (or any
> OS) cause a service to have such an incredible error rate?
Read the full story and you'll have a more balanced view than Lying Spamming
Idiot provides.
http://www.webperformanceinc.com/library/reports/windows_vs_linux_part1/index.html
http://www.webperformanceinc.com/library/reports/windows_vs_linux_part2/index.html
Plus, the tests were run using the very minimum Windows Server 2003 memory
requirement of 512mb. No reputable organization would rely on such a paltry
Windows machine when expecting a thousand http hits per second.
Roy Schestowitz
I agree that the plots are incredible. The latter (error rate) -- not as
incredible as much as predictable. The scheduler in Windows is very poor.
Vista even made it worse than XP, based on the experience of several people.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Anonymity - established 2001, Google Groups
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
17:05:01 up 34 days, 5:53, 4 users, load average: 0.23, 0.50, 0.69
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Jan 12, 10:37 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com>
> wrote:
>> Tomcat Performance: Linux faster than Windows
>
> [snip numerous excellent benchmark references]
>
> Looks like there were several benchmarks showing that Linux is blowing
> Windows out of the water in industry standard benchmarks.
If you read the actual benchmarks, you find out that the blog only
published the ones that were flattering to Linux, there are a number of
others that aren't quite so flattering.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why would they need Microsoft's permission to publish a Tomcat benchmark?
>
> I suppose if they are running Tomcat on Windows it might fall under
> the benchmarking clauses of the Windows EULA.
What clauses might those be? Have you actually read the Windows EULA?
There is no such clause.
> Having spent a few thousand defending a trademark against this sort
> of legal saber rattling, I wouldn't count it out.
Maybe you should actually read what it is you are speculating about first,
before doing the actual speculation.
Erik Funkenbusch
No, it's not incredible. It reflects a difference in how low memory
conditions are handled. If you read the actual benchmarks, you see this:
"When our servlet found itself hitting memory limits of the app server, the
platforms had an opportunity to reveal different error handling techniques.
Linux maintained it's lead over it's Windows counterpart, except when it
was forced to deal with the memory shortage. Users were potentially forced
to wait minutes or more for their page to complete loading. Potential waits
turned into repeated waits for users navigating through a long sequence of
pages. Windows users saw a different story. Under the same memory shortage,
the OS was forced to turn away traffic, but delivered roughly the same
number of successful hits as our Linux server."
In other words, Linux would force a user to wait "minutes or more" for a
complete page, while Windows chose to refuse the connection when memory
became scarce.
In other words, the graphs don't tell the whole story.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:26:44 -0600, tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
> wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why would they need Microsoft's permission to publish a Tomcat
>>> benchmark?
>>
>> I suppose if they are running Tomcat on Windows it might fall under
>> the benchmarking clauses of the Windows EULA.
>
> What clauses might those be? Have you actually read the Windows EULA?
> There is no such clause.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/02/1751222
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29/microsoft_vista_eula_analysis/
http://gnu.org.in/pipermail/linuxers/Week-of-Mon-20021111/033147.html
http://borsboards.com/archive/?view=28156
http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/4/28/0851/56993
...
Many more
...
Care to lie more now, Erik Funkenbusch?
--
"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich Schiller
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:26:44 -0600, tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why would they need Microsoft's permission to publish a Tomcat benchmark?
>>
>> I suppose if they are running Tomcat on Windows it might fall under
>> the benchmarking clauses of the Windows EULA.
>
> What clauses might those be? Have you actually read the Windows EULA?
> There is no such clause.
The EULA in my MSDN supplied copy of Windows had an exclusion on
publishing server benchmarks without permission from MS, and I've
seen more recent exceptions regarding .Net benchmarks in desktop
versions of Windows. I'll admit that my memory could be out of date.
The text of the license I have includes:
"Server Software. You must obtain Microsoft???s prior written approval
to disclose to a third party the results of any benchmark test of
server software or additional software that comes with it."
Is this language perhaps specific to MSDN versions of Windows
Server products? Or perhaps you have a more recent copy that does
not include that text? Please share the EULA you are referring to
if you can.
>> Having spent a few thousand defending a trademark against this sort
>> of legal saber rattling, I wouldn't count it out.
>
> Maybe you should actually read what it is you are speculating about first,
> before doing the actual speculation.
Hey it wouldn't be speculation if I was working from perfect
and complete information now, would it? ;) I'm not trying to
claim that MS actually precludes the benchmarks in question, only
that any mention of benchmark restrictions in the license could
be used as a legal scare tactic to silence a benchmark publisher.
If you are just some shmo with a blog, chances are you won't
want to pony up the few thousand dollars it would take to handle
even a bogus claim.
Again, I'm not saying that MS is doing this or even would do this,
only that they could if they wanted to. It is not exactly an
uncommon practice in business (unfortunately).
Thad
P.S. feel free to share the version of EULA you are working from.
Hadron
> ____/ Rex Ballard on Sunday 13 January 2008 06:55 : \____
>
>> On Jan 12, 10:37 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Tomcat Performance: Linux faster than Windows
>>
>> [snip numerous excellent benchmark references]
>>
>> Looks like there were several benchmarks showing that Linux is blowing
>> Windows out of the water in industry standard benchmarks.
>
> Vista and its sister Longhorn (WS08) make things a helluva lot worse, based on
> what I've read so far. Remember Gutmann's analogy which involves
> athletes 'running' on crutches.
>
>> Cache these entries quick, because it won't be long before Microsoft
>> makes them "disappear" and has the bench-marker retest and republish
>> what Microsoft wants (since they didn't get prior written approval
>> from Microsoft to publish these entries).
>
> I have references to show them doing this.
>
>> Great job again Roy
>
> Thanks. Coming from you, this means a lot.
Coming from the man who thinks he invented Java? Hilarious. Just nuttier
and nuttier.
Erik Funkenbusch
You should really read what you link to.
The benchmark restriction is on the .NET framework, not the OS. Nor would
that benchmark restriction relate to an Apache Tomcat benchmark using Java.
There is no clause that prohibits bencharking of the OS, nor is there a
clause which would prohibit the authors of the benchmark being referred to
from running or publishing their results.
Try again peter.
Erik Funkenbusch
> The EULA in my MSDN supplied copy of Windows had an exclusion on
> publishing server benchmarks without permission from MS, and I've
> seen more recent exceptions regarding .Net benchmarks in desktop
> versions of Windows. I'll admit that my memory could be out of date.
> The text of the license I have includes:
>
> "Server Software. You must obtain Microsoft???s prior written approval
> to disclose to a third party the results of any benchmark test of
> server software or additional software that comes with it."
>
> Is this language perhaps specific to MSDN versions of Windows
> Server products? Or perhaps you have a more recent copy that does
> not include that text? Please share the EULA you are referring to
> if you can.
I believe that is a generic MSDN EULA, and typically refers to products
like SQL Server, not the OS itself. Here's the Windows Server EULA.
The only reference to benchmarking is in regards to .NET. That's a .NET
restriction, not an OS one, and in any case doesn't restrict the
benchmarking of Tomcat with Java.
Moshe Goldfarb
The same guy claims the govt stole plans for a secret weapon out of his
high school locker and then developed said plans into the stealth fighter.
Or something like that.
This group gets nuttier by the second.
DFS
1. Kohlmann accuses EF of lying.
2. EF shuts down the Kohlmann fool with the facts.
3. The Kohlmann fool slinks away and, like always, refuses to admit he was
wrong and apologize.
4. Another day in cola la-la land
Peter Köhlmann
http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/4/28/0851/56993
/quote
You may install and test any number of copies of the software on your
premises.
You may not test the software in a live operating environment unless
Microsoft permits you to do so under another agreement.
/unquote
This is about *WGA* and not NET
And what was so unclear about ... Many more...
I simply did not include the many pointers to MS EULAs with benchmark
restrictions. How many *several* *hundred* links do you need, DumbFullShit?
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>
>>> http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
>>
>> At last, a comparison that at least uses a scatter plot.
>>
>> That Error/Second plot is pretty incredible. How can Windows (or any
>> OS) cause a service to have such an incredible error rate?
>
> Read the full story and you'll have a more balanced view than Lying Spamming
> Idiot provides.
>
> http://www.webperformanceinc.com/library/reports/windows_vs_linux_part1/index.html
When our servlet found itself hitting memory limits of the app
server, the platforms had an opportunity to reveal different error
handling techniques. Linux maintained it's lead over it's Windows
counterpart, except when it was forced to deal with the memory
shortage.
> http://www.webperformanceinc.com/library/reports/windows_vs_linux_part2/index.html
>
> Plus, the tests were run using the very minimum Windows Server 2003 memory
> requirement of 512mb.
What? This fellow used the Microsoft/Mindcraft gambit? Heavens!
> No reputable organization would rely on such a paltry
> Windows machine when expecting a thousand http hits per second.
Yet it was just fine for a Linux box. That tells ya somethin'. Of
course, note the quote above, where Linux shows a wart.
In the final analysis:
From the administrator's stand point, our Linux server did not tie up
it's CPU resources as early, and was able to service many more
connections overall. However, some of those connections were
consistently delayed, leaving users waiting on the other end.
However, even with some normal delays in consideration, our Linux
server was still able to serve more users than it's Windows
counterpart.
--
All the really good ideas I ever had came to me while I was milking a cow.
-- Grant Wood
Linonut
> In other words, Linux would force a user to wait "minutes or more" for a
> complete page, while Windows chose to refuse the connection when memory
> became scarce.
>
> In other words, the graphs don't tell the whole story.
You are learning!
Of course, Linux used less RAM in the first place.
--
"The eleventh commandment was `Thou Shalt Compute' or `Thou Shalt Not
Compute' -- I forget which."
-- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
Tim Smith
Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> > http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
>
> At last, a comparison that at least uses a scatter plot.
>
> That Error/Second plot is pretty incredible. How can Windows (or any
> OS) cause a service to have such an incredible error rate?
See Erik's answer. In general, when a cross-platform thing is
benchmarked on different OSes, you have to look at the test very
carefully. This is similar to another benchmark Roy touted a while
back, using the R stats software system, which purported to show that
Linux was much faster than OS X. However, if you looked deeper, you'd
find that the test made heavy use of memory allocation, and the default
size it allocated was one that happened to fit very will with Linux's
memory allocator, and not so well with OS X's. (Memory allocators have
different sweet spots at different sizes). If you built the benchmark
to use an allocator that hit an OS X sweet spot instead of a Linux sweet
spot, things changed dramatically.
The fact is that on similar hardware, pretty much all current major OSes
perform about the same. There might be some particular areas where one
or another has an advantage, such as:
1. Linux does some dynamic tuning of TCP parameters on a per-connection
basis. I think Windows takes a "one size fits all" approach, and you
have to use manual tools to tweak these things. (I've not kept up on
Windows, so they maybe do tune dynamically now).
2. Given a cross-platform program, like Firefox or Open Office, Windows
can in general launch it faster. Windows tracks I/O during launches,
and saves a record of that. On subsequent launches, it looks at that
record to figure out what I/O is going to happen, and re-orders that I/O
to be more efficient. I've seen this technique cut launch times in half
with some programs on some versions of Windows.
But, unless you hit one of these kinds of cases, which you generally
won't for most things, things will generally be close, and most
differences will be due to things being tuned wrong for one system or
the other.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why would they need Microsoft's permission to publish a Tomcat benchmark?
>
> I suppose if they are running Tomcat on Windows it might fall under
> the benchmarking clauses of the Windows EULA. There is certainly
What benchmarking clauses of the Windows EULA?
There have been some Microsoft products that have had benchmarking
clauses. Those were products like their SQL server or their application
server, where the clauses were necessary because Oracle, Sun, and IBM
had those kind of clauses covering their corresponding products. For
obvious reasons, if all your major competitors have such a clause, you
need one to,
(And the Microsoft clauses did not prohibit publishing benchmarks, if I
recall correctly. Rather, they just required that you also publish all
the necessary configuration information for all the products benchmarked
to allow third parties to reproduce the benchmark, and if your product
had an anti-benchmarking clause, they required you to let them benchmark
it under the same terms--they could publish benchmarks of your product
provided they publish complete information).
> nothing stopping MS from making legal threats on those grounds,
> even if it would ultimately not stand up in court. Considering how
> expensive it can be to respond to even a meritless claim, it would be
> an effective strategy.
Actually, the only company with such a clause that has made threats is,
I believe, Oracle. They got a magazine to pull Oracle from an upcoming
benchmark article.
--
--Tim Smith
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> Tomcat Performance: Linux faster than Windows
[...]
> http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
Oohhh, look at that error graph. Euch!
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
00:00:04 up 23 days, 21:35, 5 users, load average: 0.11, 0.19, 0.20
[H]omer
> I agree that the plots are incredible. The latter (error rate) -- not
> as incredible as much as predictable. The scheduler in Windows is
> very poor. Vista even made it worse than XP, based on the experience
> of several people.
It's a pretty well know fact that Vista's scheduler is a mess.
What other OS cannot play audio and browse the network simultaneously?
Mark Russinovich (exposed Sony rootkit) has a good explanation, here:
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
00:09:04 up 23 days, 21:44, 5 users, load average: 0.21, 0.22, 0.19
Erik Funkenbusch
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Nope, sorry. Still doesn't restrict you from running benchmarks against
Apache Tomcat with Java.
Try again.
Peter Köhlmann
/quote Erik F
What clauses might those be? Have you actually read the Windows EULA? There
is no such clause.
/unquote
Try again
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Roy Schestowitz
> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In other words, Linux would force a user to wait "minutes or more" for a
>> complete page, while Windows chose to refuse the connection when memory
>> became scarce.
>>
>> In other words, the graphs don't tell the whole story.
>
> You are learning!
>
> Of course, Linux used less RAM in the first place.
Why are the Microsoft Agents so uptight here? Oh, let me guess... this hit a
sensitive spot, do they must attack.
One of those benchmarks that praise, Linux by the way, comes from a Microsoft
Most Valued Professional. Talk about a shot in the foot... with MVPs like
these, does Microsoft need enemies?
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Reversi for Linux/Win32: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
Roy Schestowitz
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> I agree that the plots are incredible. The latter (error rate) -- not
>> as incredible as much as predictable. The scheduler in Windows is
>> very poor. Vista even made it worse than XP, based on the experience
>> of several people.
>
> It's a pretty well know fact that Vista's scheduler is a mess.
> What other OS cannot play audio and browse the network simultaneously?
>
> Mark Russinovich (exposed Sony rootkit) has a good explanation, here:
>
> http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx
/s/explanation/apology\/excuse/
Keep it up, Mark Russinovich. You're doing a great job promoting an exodus to
Free software.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Mod me up and I'll mod you 'insightful'"
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 2 2007-12-10 11:12 last=
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
Moshe Goldfarb
> ____/ Linonut on Monday 14 January 2008 00:01 : \____
>
>> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> In other words, Linux would force a user to wait "minutes or more" for a
>>> complete page, while Windows chose to refuse the connection when memory
>>> became scarce.
>>>
>>> In other words, the graphs don't tell the whole story.
>>
>> You are learning!
>>
>> Of course, Linux used less RAM in the first place.
>
> Why are the Microsoft Agents so uptight here? Oh, let me guess... this hit a
> sensitive spot, do they must attack.
>
> One of those benchmarks that praise, Linux by the way, comes from a Microsoft
> Most Valued Professional. Talk about a shot in the foot... with MVPs like
> these, does Microsoft need enemies?
The same could be said of you and Linux advocacy.
Most serious Linux advocates just wish you would disappear because you are
making them look like idiots and furthering the negative stereotypes that
Linux already has.
Roy Schestowitz
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why would they need Microsoft's permission to publish a Tomcat benchmark?
>
> I suppose if they are running Tomcat on Windows it might fall under
> the benchmarking clauses of the Windows EULA. There is certainly
> nothing stopping MS from making legal threats on those grounds,
> even if it would ultimately not stand up in court. Considering how
> expensive it can be to respond to even a meritless claim, it would be
> an effective strategy.
>
> Having spent a few thousand defending a trademark against this sort
> of legal saber rattling, I wouldn't count it out.
Forget about sabers. Just as Microsoft shoots some knees already (collects
patent tax from businesses that refuse to be identified), it has also been
pointing guns at innocent researchers.
"According to the Vista user agreement (EULA), because the OS contains
"one or more components" of the .Net Framework 3.0, users can conduct
internal benchmarking of those components, but can't disclose the
results of those benchmarks--or measurements to compare rival
products--unless they comply with conditions found at a Microsoft Web
site"
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127719-c,vistalonghorn/article.html
Also consider the recent incident where a person benchmarked Vista SP1 to show
there's no performance improvement. Unless my memory betrays me, the beasts of
Redmond started a smear campaign against the poor guy.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Mandriva & Fedora - Gotta love them girls
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 149 total, 1 running, 148 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
Roy Schestowitz
Just killfile that liar. He's not worth your time.
Recent:
"According to the Vista user agreement (EULA), because the OS contains
"one or more components" of the .Net Framework 3.0, users can conduct
internal benchmarking of those components, but can't disclose the
results of those benchmarks--or measurements to compare rival
products--unless they comply with conditions found at a Microsoft Web
site"
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127719-c,vistalonghorn/article.html
--
Moshe Goldfarb
> Just killfile that liar. He's not worth your time.
Better to trot on over to digg.com and see all the same crap you post here
being modded down into the toilet.
Peter Köhlmann
< snip flatfish droppings >
You lately nymshifted to
1.ball.willy, Abbie Diaz, achmed.jones, Aftab Singh, Allen Cusimano, Allie
Perkins, Allison Juergans, allison_hunt1969, Alicia Hunt, Ana Thema,
andyschipowitz, Anna Banger, anonymous, arkady.duntov, Archie, Archie Moss
Bunker, Archie Watermann, Attila, Baba Booey, Babcock Johnson,
babcock.latreen, Babu Singh, ball.cock.the.plumber, banjo.boy69, Bill
Thomson, Billy <billy.the.kidd>, bill.gates.loves.me, BingoBongo, bison,
Bjarne Jensen, bjornstad8800, BklynBoy, bones4jones, bonobo magilla, Boyce
Mabri, BSEE, Bunsen Burner, Buster, c.baumstumpff, CBFalconer, Charles
LeGrand, Charlie, Choppers McGee, Chris Thomas, Christine Abernathy, Claire
Lynn, Clippy, Clock King, collie4roy, Collie Entragion, Colon Singh, common
cold, compton.plaines_kid, Connie Hines, Corrie, corry.lebeu, Corrie
Titlaand, Cory Dyvik, Curtis Wilson, cymon.says, Damian O'Leary, Dana
Bush, Danny Kwong, dbx_boy, Deadpenguin, Debbie, detective48, Devon Dawson,
dismoqualifetch, Donn Carlsbad, donna.bunting_tv, dont.pullout,
doris.gets.her.oates, Doug Richardson, Dragon.Boy, Dr.Long John Jones,
dy.sector, echo.valley_26809, Elliot Zimmermann, Elwin Winters, Emmanuel
Arias, Fawn Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, frank boson, Franz Klammer, Fred
Simmons, gabriele howorth, Gary Stewart, GayClod, George Cotton, George
Littlefield, Gilbert, Gilbert Goiter, Gilbert Hochaim,
gilligan, goldfarb44, gooseborg, Greg Finnigan, Greg Laplante, Hans Kimm,
Hans Tomlinson, Harry Hilton, Harvey Fogel, Heather, Heather69, Heather
Trax, Heddy Seafield, Heidi van Wong, helmut.ginter, hepcat,
high_pain_humper, Hugh Himless, hymen.the.jew, llanalott, Ishmeal Hafizi,
itchy balls, Ivan Mctavish, IvanaB, Jason, jeff.smiley, Jeff Szarka,
jjwassermann, Joe Josephson, John, John King, John Shelton, John
Smith, johnnyscotrun, jolt.n.pizza, Jorge Jorgensen, jorge_shillingford,
Jose Lopez, juke_joint, kaptain kaput, Karel Olish, karen.bullfinch, Karen
Hill, Karla Snodgress, kathy_krantz, Kaylie Solomon, Kendra, Kenneth Downs,
Kenny Dugan, Kent Dorfman, Ken Johnson, Kim Coinop, Kinglen Wang, Kristen,
kumba killington, Kurt Janker, Kyle Cadet, lafferty6, L Didio, Laura
Shillingford, Le Farter, Le Yammy, Leaking Onion, Leo Diaz, Les Cramer, Les
Turner, Les Walton, Leslie Bassman, Lilly, Lindy, linux.curious, Linux
Exposer, linux.freak.detector, Lisa Shavas, Lisa Cottmann, Lois Hunt, Long,
long_tong_ling, luisortizhome, Lukumi Babalu Aye, Luna Lane, Major Mynor,
Manny, mark.kent.is.owned, Mario Fermin, McSwain, mista twista,Mogumbo,
Moses, Moshe Goldfarb , Mooshoo Bong Singh, mr.macfeelme, mycarisfast,
narrows_whitefish, nate_mcspook, Navid Shakibapour, oh.bama.da.rack,
okto_pussy, opensource.sucks, organ.creep, OSS KDE User, Paddy McCrockett,
Paul Wannamaker, Paris Marriot, Patricia, Patrick Landrum, Patty LeGrange,
patty pippins, Patty Poppins, percy samson, Peter Gluckman, Peter Kohlmann,
Peter Kränkwonov, peter.traphagen, Phil, Phillip Cornwall, phoung, phoung
quoak, pickle_pete, Piss Clam, Polly Ester, Poopy Pants
McGee, pus.boy99, pyles69, Quimby, Quinton Magee, Quizno Backer, Ray
Schitzmepantz, Reporter, Rich, Richard P. Johnson, Richie, Richie O'Toole,
Richie Spano, right.wanger, Robert Strunk, rodolfo.garcia44,
rothstein_ivan, Roy_Pestowitz, Roy.Schakemetitz, Roy.Schavedmenutz,
Roy.Schavesmewankz, roy.shysterwitz, Roy.Schitzowitz, roys.testicles,
roy.the.spam.king, RP Modell, ryebra, Sally Vadi, Sammy, Sammy Whalen, Saul
Goldblatt, schavemetitz, Schestertitz, schestowizzle, schestowitz,
schitzmepantz, schisterwitz, Schlomo Smykowski, Sharon Cackle, Sharon
Hubbasland, Sean, Sean Fitzhenry, Sean Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown,
Shelly K., Sherlock Holmes, Schlomo Rabinowitz, Simon, Simon Lewis,
simply.lisa, Singer, sista sledgehammer, slacker.mcspritze, Spammy_Davis,
spanny_davis, Stefan Karstensen, Stephan Simonsen, Stephanie, Stephanie
Mannerz, Stephen, Stephen Olsen, Stephen Townshend, stomach.pump, SuckyB,
Sue, sue quinterra, sully1999, SunnyB, Susan, Susan Bladder, Susan
Lapinski, Susan Wong, Suzi Wong, suzie.linux, Suzie Wong,
Swampee, swing.cock, sylvano12tegriorgriach, Ted Bennington, Terri
Sorensen, Terry Porter, The Beaver, Thorsten, Thorsten Thigpen, Timmy
Luncford , Toby Rastus Roosovelt III, toe.mein, Tomas Bicsak, tomas.bozak,
Tomas Dunton, Tomas Lucatorto, Tori, Tori Wassermann, Torre Stanslaand,
Trace Dennison, Tracee, Traci, traci.alicock, traci.manicotti, traci.pusey,
Traci Spritzendrainer, trailerpark, Trina Swallows, Trolly, Trudi Simpkins,
Tryxie Lustern, udayshankar29, Uday Shankar, victimizedb, victimizedbyms,
Vince Fontain, Vladimir Yepifano, Walter Bubniak, Wang Mycock, Wasser,
Waterskidoo, wendy, Wendy Duzz, Wendy Toiletwater, Whizzer, Wilbur J, willy
watkins jr, Willy Wong, wiltons_pypes, Winnie Septos, wizard.shot,
wm_walsh, Wobbles, wylbur.horseman, Yanick Schmuley and zyklon_C.
Plus many, many, many more.
--
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.
Rex Ballard
> In article
> <923126f2-ebb9-4992-8ce0-540c86a51...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cache these entries quick, because it won't be long before Microsoft
> > makes them "disappear" and has the bench-marker retest and republish
> > what Microsoft wants (since they didn't get prior written approval
> > from Microsoft to publish these entries).
> Why would they need Microsoft's permission to publish a Tomcat benchmark?
Read the EULA licenses very carefully. It expressly forbids the
publication of benchmarks without Microsoft's prior written
permission. If you publish without that written permission, Microsoft
can ask you to retract, rewrite, and/or retest your benchmark.
Microsoft uses copyright law and trademark law more effectively than
any company I know of. Not every judge sides with Microsoft, but
enough do to make benchmarks like these "collector's Items".
> --Tim Smith
Linonut
> In article <06qij.73137$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>> > http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
>>
>> At last, a comparison that at least uses a scatter plot.
>>
>> That Error/Second plot is pretty incredible. How can Windows (or any
>> OS) cause a service to have such an incredible error rate?
>
> The fact is that on similar hardware, pretty much all current major OSes
> perform about the same.
I seriously doubt it. Especially considering *cough* *cough* Vista.
> There might be some particular areas where one
> or another has an advantage, such as:
>
> 1. Linux does some dynamic tuning of TCP parameters on a per-connection
> basis. I think Windows takes a "one size fits all" approach...
>
> 2. Given a cross-platform program, like Firefox or Open Office, Windows
> can in general launch it faster. Windows tracks I/O during launches,
> and saves a record of that. On subsequent launches, it looks at that
> record to figure out what I/O is going to happen, and re-orders that I/O
> to be more efficient. I've seen this technique cut launch times in half
> with some programs on some versions of Windows.
So how did you rule out simple caching?
In any case, I notice the "study" is copyright 2006, so may already be
moot.
--
We all know that no one understands anything that isn't funny.
Hadron
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In article <06qij.73137$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
>> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>>> > http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
>>>
>>> At last, a comparison that at least uses a scatter plot.
>>>
>>> That Error/Second plot is pretty incredible. How can Windows (or any
>>> OS) cause a service to have such an incredible error rate?
>>
>> The fact is that on similar hardware, pretty much all current major OSes
>> perform about the same.
>
> I seriously doubt it. Especially considering *cough* *cough* Vista.
The you know jack about it. They do. The overhead of the OS becomes a
TINY impact in performance in the great majority of cases when the HW is
"sufficient" to east up the memory requirements.
>> There might be some particular areas where one
>> or another has an advantage, such as:
>>
>> 1. Linux does some dynamic tuning of TCP parameters on a per-connection
>> basis. I think Windows takes a "one size fits all" approach...
>>
>> 2. Given a cross-platform program, like Firefox or Open Office, Windows
>> can in general launch it faster. Windows tracks I/O during launches,
>> and saves a record of that. On subsequent launches, it looks at that
>> record to figure out what I/O is going to happen, and re-orders that I/O
>> to be more efficient. I've seen this technique cut launch times in half
>> with some programs on some versions of Windows.
>
> So how did you rule out simple caching?
LOL. Seemingly totally disconnected once more. A random buzzword thrown
in totally at odds, or ignoring, with what went before. Nothing was
"ruled out". He just listed some approaches taken.
>
> In any case, I notice the "study" is copyright 2006, so may already be
> moot.
--
Eau de Pentium: per l'uomo che non deve dividere. Mai.
-- Anonima, riferita al bug delle prime CPU.
Peter Köhlmann
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>
>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> In article <06qij.73137$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
>>> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>>>> > http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
>>>>
>>>> At last, a comparison that at least uses a scatter plot.
>>>>
>>>> That Error/Second plot is pretty incredible. How can Windows (or any
>>>> OS) cause a service to have such an incredible error rate?
>>>
>>> The fact is that on similar hardware, pretty much all current major OSes
>>> perform about the same.
>>
>> I seriously doubt it. Especially considering *cough* *cough* Vista.
>
> The you know jack about it. They do. The overhead of the OS becomes a
> TINY impact in performance in the great majority of cases when the HW is
> "sufficient" to east up the memory requirements.
That simply *has* to be the reason why games run much more sluggish on Vista
than on XP
It also must be the reason why Vista throttles the network when playing
something "demanding" like a movie
< snip more Hadron Quark lunacy >
--
It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
'Where am I allowed to go today?'
[H]omer
> So how did you rule out simple caching?
Of course there are profiling tools for Linux too, like OProfile and
Sysprof. Prelinking makes a dramatic improvement as well (Windows calls
this "rebasing", although how dynamic it is compared to prelink, I don't
know). The caching features of readahead and readahead-early also make a
huge difference to Linux performance.
There may well be like-for-like performance features in both Windows and
Linux, but real-life Linux performance is an order of magnitude better
than Windows in most operations, as this study further confirms.
> In any case, I notice the "study" is copyright 2006, so may already
> be moot.
Everything changes, but Free Software tends to change faster, and
usually for the better, unlike Windows.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
14:46:09 up 24 days, 12:22, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.27
Linonut
'e is a dumb one, aint 'e?
--
<cesarb> Damn, every time I spawn, qf-client-x11 locks hard
<Zoid> Don't die?
<Knghtbrd> good incentive.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:34:30 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:36:15 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>
>> * Roy Schestowitz peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> Tomcat Performance: Linux faster than Windows
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Apache Tomcat is a very common application server in java-based solutions and
>>>| it is able to run on every platform supported by Sun Java. But which platform
>>>| delivers most performance and stability; Microsoft Windows or Linux.
>>>| According to this performance study part 2, Linux significantly outperforms
>>>| Microsoft Windows.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
>>
>> At last, a comparison that at least uses a scatter plot.
>>
>> That Error/Second plot is pretty incredible. How can Windows (or any
>> OS) cause a service to have such an incredible error rate?
>
> No, it's not incredible. It reflects a difference in how low memory
> conditions are handled. If you read the actual benchmarks, you see this:
>
> "When our servlet found itself hitting memory limits of the app server, the
> platforms had an opportunity to reveal different error handling techniques.
> Linux maintained it's lead over it's Windows counterpart, except when it
> was forced to deal with the memory shortage. Users were potentially forced
> to wait minutes or more for their page to complete loading. Potential waits
> turned into repeated waits for users navigating through a long sequence of
> pages. Windows users saw a different story. Under the same memory shortage,
> the OS was forced to turn away traffic, but delivered roughly the same
> number of successful hits as our Linux server."
>
> In other words, Linux would force a user to wait "minutes or more" for a
> complete page, while Windows chose to refuse the connection when memory
> became scarce.
>
> In other words, the graphs don't tell the whole story.
Of course. How could they?
Linux served more users, more users per second, with fewer errors, even
if you add the long/slow responces in as errors on the Linux side (as
they should be) while doing so with less CPU overhead than MS-Windows.
Sure, there's a difference in how each system handles memory starvation,
and Linux does so better when you take into account errors and responce
time.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHi6jqd90bcYOAWPYRAss7AJ9GAIR30zdkJwwRM9mLI59MWuVVuwCcCruB
uXrkkiVm/OS/XSgOzkOqqFU=
=Fbbm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his
self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long
Rex Ballard
> Linonut wrote:
> >>http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
> > At last, a comparison that at least uses a scatter plot.
> > That Error/Second plot is pretty incredible. How can Windows (or any
> > OS) cause a service to have such an incredible error rate?
Probably race conditions. Microsoft handles threads a little
differently than UNIX or Linux. This could have an impact on how Java
threads are implemented.
> Read the full story and you'll have a more balanced view than Lying Spamming
> Idiot provides.
http://www.webperformanceinc.com/library/reports/windows_vs_linux_par...
http://www.webperformanceinc.com/library/reports/windows_vs_linux_par...
I read the entire article. The more detail they present, the better
Linux looked. More throughput, faster response times, and fewer
errors, even in a scatter graph. There was a pretty clear pattern
that showed Linux as being superior.
> Plus, the tests were run using the very minimum Windows Server 2003 memory
> requirement of 512mb. No reputable organization would rely on such a paltry
> Windows machine when expecting a thousand http hits per second.
This is a common method of doing stress testing. You start with a
scaled down implementation, which gives you a better indication of how
the system will perform, without having to have a large and complex
test lab. Testing a full scale server, with quad cores, multiple
ethernet, and multiple drives can take 20-30 load servers, and on
Linux, could probably handle about 4,000 transactions per second
(depending on number of drives and drive rotational speed).
Who knows, it might even show an even BIGGER gap.
Hadron
> On Jan 13, 11:54 am, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> Linonut wrote:
>> >>http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/
>
>> > At last, a comparison that at least uses a scatter plot.
>
>> > That Error/Second plot is pretty incredible. How can Windows (or any
>> > OS) cause a service to have such an incredible error rate?
>
> Probably race conditions. Microsoft handles threads a little
> differently than UNIX or Linux. This could have an impact on how Java
> threads are implemented.
Of "probably" was a pig and "could" was a cow then they possibly might
have married.
>
>> Read the full story and you'll have a more balanced view than Lying Spamming
>> Idiot provides.
>
> http://www.webperformanceinc.com/library/reports/windows_vs_linux_par...
>
> http://www.webperformanceinc.com/library/reports/windows_vs_linux_par...
>
> I read the entire article. The more detail they present, the better
> Linux looked. More throughput, faster response times, and fewer
> errors, even in a scatter graph. There was a pretty clear pattern
> that showed Linux as being superior.
Or that the app was badly designed for Windows. Or ... oh someone else
addressed that.
>
>> Plus, the tests were run using the very minimum Windows Server 2003 memory
>> requirement of 512mb. No reputable organization would rely on such a paltry
>> Windows machine when expecting a thousand http hits per second.
>
> This is a common method of doing stress testing. You start with a
> scaled down implementation, which gives you a better indication of how
> the system will perform, without having to have a large and complex
> test lab. Testing a full scale server, with quad cores, multiple
That is total bullshit and you know it. After the systems working set is
fulfilled THEN additional resources can make huge differences.
> ethernet, and multiple drives can take 20-30 load servers, and on
> Linux, could probably handle about 4,000 transactions per second
> (depending on number of drives and drive rotational speed).
There's that "could" again.
>
> Who knows, it might even show an even BIGGER gap.
>
Who knows indeed. Certainly not you Rexx. You're smart enough not to lie
and bullshit like this. Why do you do it?
Erik Funkenbusch
There is no such clause that prevents you from java or tomcat benchmarks on
Windows. Plain and simple. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Peter Köhlmann
Nice try in trying to weasel out of your own words, Erik
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.
Hadron
In the same way most of us do not understand when he says he is not a
Windows user when he has admitted to being a professional Windows
programmer I guess. A funny old world. The same way he refused to
understand that swapfiles now have the same performance levels as swap
partition despite being pointed to oodles of evidence to back it up.
Peter Köhlmann
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:05:24 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> /quote Erik F
>>> What clauses might those be? Have you actually read the Windows EULA?
>>> There is no such clause.
>>> /unquote
>>>
>>> Try again
>>
>> There is no such clause that prevents you from java or tomcat benchmarks
>> on
>> Windows. Plain and simple. Why is that so hard for you to
>> understand?
>
> In the same way most of us do not understand when he says he is not a
> Windows user when he has admitted to being a professional Windows
> programmer I guess. A funny old world.
Yes, isn't it. A world where people actually are not stuck to a single
platform.
But you would know nothing about that, with your linux "install" running in
a vmware virtual machine on XP
> The same way he refused to
> understand that swapfiles now have the same performance levels as swap
> partition despite being pointed to oodles of evidence to back it up.
Good to hear, Hadron Quark.
Now you can certainly point to the myriad of links which explain how to
do "Suspend to disk" with a swapfile.
After all, you are telling us that it performs the same as a swap partition.
Additionally, you will now (for the very first time) reveal how to set up a
swapfile which will be contiguous under all conditions.
After all, you told us that the "tools" will not allow to do it
non-contiguous.
Right, Hadron Quark, "swapfile expert" par excellence?
--
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
Erik Funkenbusch
Nice try at trying to twist words, peter. But here are my *EXACT* words.
thad05:
I suppose if they are running Tomcat on Windows it might fall under the
benchmarking clauses of the Windows EULA.
Me:
What clauses might those be? Have you actually read the Windows EULA?
There is no such clause.
To date, you have not produced any benchmarking clause which "running
Tomcat on Windows might fall under".
I was entirely correct when I said there was no such clause.
Of course you can't seem to understand simple context (or deliberately
ignore it), so I doubt you will understand this.
I will rephrase, just for you though. There are no clauses in the Windows
EULA that prevent benchmarking of the OS or applications that run under the
OS that are not .NET based. Tomcat and Java have no benchmarking
restrictions under Windows, as such claims by Rex and others that there are
such restrictions are wrong.
Moshe Goldfarb
How can someone pretend to be a Linux advocate by day, earn his living
programming Windows and yet claim he is not a Windows user?
This group seems to be infested with hypocrites.
Mark Kent
> ____/ [H]omer on Monday 14 January 2008 00:10 : \____
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>
>>> I agree that the plots are incredible. The latter (error rate) -- not
>>> as incredible as much as predictable. The scheduler in Windows is
>>> very poor. Vista even made it worse than XP, based on the experience
>>> of several people.
>>
>> It's a pretty well know fact that Vista's scheduler is a mess.
>> What other OS cannot play audio and browse the network simultaneously?
>>
>> Mark Russinovich (exposed Sony rootkit) has a good explanation, here:
>>
>> http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx
>
> /s/explanation/apology\/excuse/
>
> Keep it up, Mark Russinovich. You're doing a great job promoting an exodus to
> Free software.
>
The article is quite interesting, and, in fact, a disaster for Vista,
because it indicates a major bug in the NDIS code which causes network
throughput to be reduced inversely proportionately to the number of
network devices connected, at least assuming that the article is correct.
The author tries to claim that this won't affect your "internet
experience" with the argument that the internet is "really slow anyway".
This is a classic Microsoft bit of misinformation. Anyone running this
on high-speed corporate networks is going to have all kinds of problems.
Anyone running this code as a server of some kind is going to have
*huge* problems. What about those people trying to use "home server"?
But most of all, feel very sorry for those people who've spent good
money on high-speed internet access. They are going to be very
disappointed, however, Microsoft has explained, by proxy, that they
should blame their ISP because Windows is never wrong, right?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
[H]omer
> But most of all, feel very sorry for those people who've spent good
> money on high-speed internet access. They are going to be very
> disappointed, however, Microsoft has explained, by proxy, that they
> should blame their ISP because Windows is never wrong, right?
This comment says it all really:
.----
| Running XP I just tried playing an MP3 file, a video file and
| downloading several files from the internet all at the same time.
| The audio and video files played perfectly and there was no
| slowdown in my network speed.
|
| "mechanisms employed by the Multimedia Class Scheduler Service
| (MMCSS), a feature new to Windows Vista"
|
| Seems to me Microsoft tried to "fix" something that wasn't broken.
`----
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
10:12:07 up 25 days, 7:47, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.06, 0.07
Mark Kent
When Erik starts to tell the truth, we'll know that it's safe for us to
retire, as our job will be completed.
Mark Kent
> Verily I say unto thee, that Mark Kent spake thusly:
>
>> But most of all, feel very sorry for those people who've spent good
>> money on high-speed internet access. They are going to be very
>> disappointed, however, Microsoft has explained, by proxy, that they
>> should blame their ISP because Windows is never wrong, right?
>
> This comment says it all really:
>
> .----
>| Running XP I just tried playing an MP3 file, a video file and
>| downloading several files from the internet all at the same time.
>| The audio and video files played perfectly and there was no
>| slowdown in my network speed.
>|
>| "mechanisms employed by the Multimedia Class Scheduler Service
>| (MMCSS), a feature new to Windows Vista"
>|
>| Seems to me Microsoft tried to "fix" something that wasn't broken.
> `----
>
Nothing quite like fixing what isn't broken!
[H]omer
> When Erik starts to tell the truth, we'll know that it's safe for us
> to retire, as our job will be completed.
LOL!
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
14:43:25 up 25 days, 12:19, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.05, 0.02
Rex Ballard
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:17:46 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would they need Microsoft's permission to publish a Tomcat
> >>>>>>>>>>> benchmark?
> >>>>>>>>>> I suppose if they are running Tomcat on Windows it might fall
> >>>>>>>>>> under the benchmarking clauses of the Windows EULA.
> >>>>>>>>> What clauses might those be? Have you actually read the Windows
> >>>>>>>>> EULA? There is no such clause.
> >>>> Try again.
> >>> /quote Erik F
> >>> What clauses might those be? Have you actually read the Windows EULA?
> >>> There is no such clause.
> >>> /unquote
> >>> Try again
> >> There is no such clause that prevents you from java or tomcat benchmarks
> >> on Windows. Plain and simple. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Assuming that Java makes no calls to any part of the .NET library,
ever, Erik might be right.
I'm surprised that Microsoft left that loophole open.
Does this mean that we can assume that Linux makes a faster Java
engine than Windows?
Could Microsoft decide that because the Java JVM does have the ability
to call the .NET library, that it is covered by the .NET benchmarking
restrictions?
Is there a possibility that Mono is so much faster than
Microsoft's .NET implementation that Microsoft doesn't want those
benchmarks published?
> Nice try at trying to twist words, peter. But here are my *EXACT* words.
> thad05:
> I suppose if they are running Tomcat on Windows it might fall under the
> benchmarking clauses of the Windows EULA.
> Me:
> What clauses might those be? Have you actually read the Windows EULA?
> There is no such clause.
There are restrictions on benchmarking, but for Windows 2003,
the restriction is on .NET only.
It looks like this particular benchmark cannot be
manipulated by Microsoft.
Still, I'd cache those results somewhere, because I have a funny
feeling that Microsoft will make them "disappear" real soon.
> To date, you have not produced any benchmarking clause which "running
> Tomcat on Windows might fall under".
Let's hope you are correct Erik. It will give us the ability to do
side-by-side benchmarks of Windows and Linux.
> I was entirely correct when I said there was no such clause.
Assuming that Microsoft doesn't find some way to claim that since the
Java JVM calls the library that contains the .NET code, that the
benchmarks still come under the .NET benchmarking restrictions.
Microsoft's legal department has a remarkably good imagination when it
comes to creating clauses that look innocent, but turn out to be much
more comprehensive, but it's only discovered after the violation has
occurred.
> Of course you can't seem to understand simple context (or deliberately
> ignore it), so I doubt you will understand this.
Previous versions of the Microsoft Windows EULA have had restrictions
on benchmarks, and even when the restrictions seemed innocent,
Microsoft has tried to press their case.
When the benchmarking restrictions are taken into court, the Judge
doesn't always agree with Microsoft, but even then, if Microsoft
starts to haul you into court, the cost of lawyers, hearings,
discovery motions, and just getting to a preliminary ruling can be
thousands of dollars, often a few million dollars.
> I will rephrase, just for you though. There are no clauses in the Windows
> EULA that prevent benchmarking of the OS or applications that run under the
> OS that are not .NET based.
Assuming that this isn't another round of Microsoft's "creative
Lawyering", you are right.
> Tomcat and Java have no benchmarking
> restrictions under Windows, as such claims by Rex and others that there are
> such restrictions are wrong.
At this point, I will grant you that point.
Still, keep the benchmarks in cache, because I do suspect that they
will disappear soon. Microsoft does have other ways to make it
disappear.
Hadron
> Verily I say unto thee, that Mark Kent spake thusly:
>
>> When Erik starts to tell the truth, we'll know that it's safe for us
>> to retire, as our job will be completed.
>
> LOL!
I know, it made me laugh too. Erik might have a made an honest mistake
or two over the years but he doesn't lie like Mark Kent does. The
hypocrisy of that man is a laugh indeed!
Peter Köhlmann
You mean "honest mistakes" like "dozens of root exploits"?
That /could/ have been a mistake, although highly improbable.
But when called on it and then answering "half a dozen" was an outright lie.
Erik Funkenbusch makes this kind of "honest mistake" way too often.
It is so often that it can only be viewed as deliberate. Which makes him the
liar he really is
Erik Funkenbusch
That's why you can only produce a half dozen claims going back nearly 10
years?
Yeah, "way too often" my ass.
Peter Köhlmann
Erik, you make ridiculous claims way too often for someone who is here
to "correct the mistakes of linux advocates"
And then you run away from your "mistakes" when called on them. Not exactly
the way to make "honest mistakes", Erik
In fact, you do it that often that I assume automatically that you are
lying, no matter what you post. I simply will not believe *anything* at all
coming from you without substantial proof.
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
Roy Schestowitz
> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Mark Kent spake thusly:
>>
>>> But most of all, feel very sorry for those people who've spent good
>>> money on high-speed internet access. They are going to be very
>>> disappointed, however, Microsoft has explained, by proxy, that they
>>> should blame their ISP because Windows is never wrong, right?
>>
>> This comment says it all really:
>>
>> .----
>>| Running XP I just tried playing an MP3 file, a video file and
>>| downloading several files from the internet all at the same time.
>>| The audio and video files played perfectly and there was no
>>| slowdown in my network speed.
>>|
>>| "mechanisms employed by the Multimedia Class Scheduler Service
>>| (MMCSS), a feature new to Windows Vista"
>>|
>>| Seems to me Microsoft tried to "fix" something that wasn't broken.
>> `----
>>
>
> Nothing quite like fixing what isn't broken!
Don't you remember those multi-billion dollars lawsuits against Microsoft and
Apple? It was about a year ago. Windows is RIAA/MPAA now. Use something else.
Use Linux.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Modern man is the missing link between Neanderthals and the civilised man
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1510068k total, 526172k used, 983896k free, 80812k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Erik Funkenbusch
Ahh.. so now it comes out, you believe I lie all the time because you
believe everything I say is a lie.
That's a circular argument, and only someone like you could think that way.
Johan Lindquist
Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
The other interpretation of the above, which I completely understand
you did not want to make, is that once you've lied (or, sorry,
"misremembered") enough times, people start to doubt everything you
claim.
It's a sort of cause and effect thing.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
20:44:58 up 4 days, 3:22, 5 users, load average: 0.20, 0.11, 0.10
Linux 2.6.23.12 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
Peter Köhlmann
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:13:56 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
< snip >
>>>> Erik Funkenbusch makes this kind of "honest mistake" way too often.
>>>> It is so often that it can only be viewed as deliberate. Which makes
>>>> him the liar he really is
>>>
>>> That's why you can only produce a half dozen claims going back nearly 10
>>> years?
>>>
>>> Yeah, "way too often" my ass.
>>
>> Erik, you make ridiculous claims way too often for someone who is here
>> to "correct the mistakes of linux advocates"
>> And then you run away from your "mistakes" when called on them. Not
>> exactly the way to make "honest mistakes", Erik
>>
>> In fact, you do it that often that I assume automatically that you are
>> lying, no matter what you post. I simply will not believe *anything* at
>> all coming from you without substantial proof.
>
> Ahh.. so now it comes out, you believe I lie all the time because you
> believe everything I say is a lie.
>
> That's a circular argument, and only someone like you could think that
> way.
No, it is an argument out of experience
Between your "bigger mistakes" you have made *lots* of bullshit claims
--
Windows isn't unstable. It's spontaneous.
Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Erik, you make ridiculous claims way too often for someone who is
> here to "correct the mistakes of linux advocates" And then you run
> away from your "mistakes" when called on them. Not exactly the way to
> make "honest mistakes", Erik
How's that different from when you said that a screenshot could not show
the effects of antialiasing? Or the time you claimed that it is not a
security risk to give out one's WPA password?
At least when Erik makes a mistake, he stands behind the mistake. That
is, if he says something wrong, and you correct him, he either agrees
with you, or disagrees with you. Compare to you and your WPA password
claim. When called on it, you then tried to deny ever making the claim.
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
> In article <fmipkk$e6q$03$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Erik, you make ridiculous claims way too often for someone who is
>> here to "correct the mistakes of linux advocates" And then you run
>> away from your "mistakes" when called on them. Not exactly the way to
>> make "honest mistakes", Erik
>
> How's that different from when you said that a screenshot could not show
> the effects of antialiasing?
It is different because I said that I was wrong
> Or the time you claimed that it is not a
> security risk to give out one's WPA password?
I haven't. That was Hadron Quarks claim
I have not talked about WPA at all
> At least when Erik makes a mistake, he stands behind the mistake.
You might look a little closer. He very rarely admits it
> That is, if he says something wrong, and you correct him, he either agrees
> with you, or disagrees with you.
Like in that "dozens of root exploits" case?
> Compare to you and your WPA password claim.
Which I have never made, sorry to burst your bubble
> When called on it, you then tried to deny ever making the claim.
>
I haven't. You should start to see Hadron Quark as that liar he really is
Come on, ask that asshole for the Msg-ID. He will be equally able to provide
it as in all the other claims he makes about linux advocates. That is, not
at all.
Face it: Your hero Hadron Quark is the worst liar to have posted in COLA
since a very long time
--
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!
Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Or the time you claimed that it is not a
> > security risk to give out one's WPA password?
>
> I haven't. That was Hadron Quarks claim
> I have not talked about WPA at all
Nope. Hadron claimed it WAS a security risk. You said he was wrong.
That means you claim it is NOT a security risk.
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
> In article <fmj7hm$ain$03$2...@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> > Or the time you claimed that it is not a
>> > security risk to give out one's WPA password?
>>
>> I haven't. That was Hadron Quarks claim
>> I have not talked about WPA at all
>
> Nope. Hadron claimed it WAS a security risk. You said he was wrong.
No. I have never talked about his WPA claim at all. And you know that.
I remember now, it was *you* who made that dishonest claim. Hadron Quark
just chimed in later with that idiotic blather
> That means you claim it is NOT a security risk.
>
No. That is what you want to read into something
--
"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:46:35 +0100,
Johan Lindquist <sp...@smilfinken.net> wrote:
> So anyway, it was like, 19:46 CET Jan 15 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:13:56 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>> Erik, you make ridiculous claims way too often for someone who is
>>> here to "correct the mistakes of linux advocates" And then you run
>>> away from your "mistakes" when called on them. Not exactly the way
>>> to make "honest mistakes", Erik
>>>
>>> In fact, you do it that often that I assume automatically that
>>> you are lying, no matter what you post. I simply will not believe
>>> *anything* at all coming from you without substantial proof.
>>
>> Ahh.. so now it comes out, you believe I lie all the time because
>> you believe everything I say is a lie.
>>
>> That's a circular argument, and only someone like you could think
>> that way.
>
> The other interpretation of the above, which I completely understand
> you did not want to make, is that once you've lied (or, sorry,
> "misremembered") enough times, people start to doubt everything you
> claim.
>
> It's a sort of cause and effect thing.
>
yeah, once bitten, twice shy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHjUp7d90bcYOAWPYRAhMoAKC1Z3A3a3L3GI6hKbnCasNzxN48VQCglN+5
6DbAG0Rp60XWkR0Iny1xNrQ=
=Weao
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then
god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side."
-- Frank Zappa
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:48:34 -0800,
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <fmipkk$e6q$03$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Erik, you make ridiculous claims way too often for someone who is
>> here to "correct the mistakes of linux advocates" And then you run
>> away from your "mistakes" when called on them. Not exactly the way to
>> make "honest mistakes", Erik
>
> How's that different from when you said that a screenshot could not show
> the effects of antialiasing? Or the time you claimed that it is not a
> security risk to give out one's WPA password?
>
> At least when Erik makes a mistake, he stands behind the mistake. That
> is, if he says something wrong, and you correct him, he either agrees
> with you, or disagrees with you. Compare to you and your WPA password
Or drops the subject, never responding to questions, refuses to either
retract or back up his claims.
> claim. When called on it, you then tried to deny ever making the claim.
>
Kinda like Erik...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHjUq+d90bcYOAWPYRAtguAKDo3hMdk2G9tP1oYsExgKQYkpIBVwCg7dV6
3Wh88/8Muf8IzSWG9EMfu8M=
=e0qO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The race isn't always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,
But it's the safest way to bet.
William Poaster
Claims like:-
What about using MS TT fonts on Linux?
Can he provide evidence for plenty of examples of competing ISO
standards?
And just *how* did the Morris worm spread by email?
--
This message was sent from a
computer which is guaranteed
100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.
-- PCLinuxOS 2007 --
William Poaster
> So anyway, it was like, 19:46 CET Jan 15 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:13:56 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>> Erik, you make ridiculous claims way too often for someone who is
>>> here to "correct the mistakes of linux advocates" And then you run
>>> away from your "mistakes" when called on them. Not exactly the way
>>> to make "honest mistakes", Erik
>>>
>>> In fact, you do it that often that I assume automatically that
>>> you are lying, no matter what you post. I simply will not believe
>>> *anything* at all coming from you without substantial proof.
>>
>> Ahh.. so now it comes out, you believe I lie all the time because
>> you believe everything I say is a lie.
>>
>> That's a circular argument, and only someone like you could think
>> that way.
>
> The other interpretation of the above, which I completely understand
> you did not want to make, is that once you've lied (or, sorry,
> "misremembered") enough times, people start to doubt everything you
> claim.
>
> It's a sort of cause and effect thing.
Absolutely.
William Poaster
And then we start scanning the sky for flying pigs...
Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Nope. Hadron claimed it WAS a security risk. You said he was wrong.
>
> No. I have never talked about his WPA claim at all. And you know that.
You said he was wrong, after he made his WPA statement, and you were
aware of that statement (msg < <fl2iiu$26s$03$1...@news.t-online.com>>).
Saying someone is wrong is an implicit statement that the opposite of
what
Simple question: was Hadron right when he said posting a WPA key is a
security risk?
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
William Poaster <w...@pclos2007.eu> wrote:
> Can he provide evidence for plenty of examples of competing ISO
> standards?
How about the ISO standards for:
Fortran
BASIC
C
C#
C++
Ada
Prolog
Forth
How about these image standards:
JPEG
PNG
Networking standards:
Ethernet
Token Ring
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe Goldfarb
> In article <fmipkk$e6q$03$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Erik, you make ridiculous claims way too often for someone who is
>> here to "correct the mistakes of linux advocates" And then you run
>> away from your "mistakes" when called on them. Not exactly the way to
>> make "honest mistakes", Erik
>
> How's that different from when you said that a screenshot could not show
> the effects of antialiasing? Or the time you claimed that it is not a
> security risk to give out one's WPA password?
Or at least once a week where he claims he is not a Windows user.
> At least when Erik makes a mistake, he stands behind the mistake. That
> is, if he says something wrong, and you correct him, he either agrees
> with you, or disagrees with you. Compare to you and your WPA password
> claim. When called on it, you then tried to deny ever making the claim.
Kohlmann is in idiot.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Or drops the subject, never responding to questions, refuses to either
> retract or back up his claims.
No.
That would be Roy Schestowitz.
DFS
> Absolutely.
Wow! It's amazing how much interesting material and observations and
advocacy is contained in every Dumb Willie cola poast!
Peter Köhlmann
> In article <fmjamu$qap$01$3...@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> > Nope. Hadron claimed it WAS a security risk. You said he was wrong.
>>
>> No. I have never talked about his WPA claim at all. And you know that.
>
> You said he was wrong, after he made his WPA statement, and you were
> aware of that statement (msg < <fl2iiu$26s$03$1...@news.t-online.com>>).
> Saying someone is wrong is an implicit statement that the opposite of
> what
So "stating the obvious" is a concept you've never heard of
> Simple question: was Hadron right when he said posting a WPA key is a
> security risk?
>
Simple question: When you have learned what "stating the obvious" means,
will you neck yourself?
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
If it starts working, we'll fix it. Pronto.
Mark Kent
Pigs at Angels 1-2, 1 o'clock. Tally ho!
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
chrisv
>At least when Erik makes a mistake, he stands behind the mistake. That
>is, if he says something wrong, and you correct him, he either agrees
>with you, or disagrees with you.
Bullshit he does. From what I've seen, he generally just flees the
thread.
Peter Köhlmann
Well, that is the first thing he does.
He later comes back, repeating the same lies again and again
Just look at his "Morris worm email" idiocy
--
FLASH! Intelligence of mankind decreasing. Details at ... uh, when
the little hand is on the ....
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:41:07 -0500,
Moshe Goldfarb <brick....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:07:26 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>
>> Or drops the subject, never responding to questions, refuses to either
>> retract or back up his claims.
>
> No.
If you don't think Erik does that, you haven't been paying attention.
Must be the number of nymshifts you've done clouding your brain.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHjmond90bcYOAWPYRAo7KAJ0a5sc9NzKm7HytNwDsb+TQeqZSMACgzOeB
dEnrnQ5T1FCMscRuVolRnHk=
=9Qg8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Some days violence is just a nice quick solution to a problem that
would need thought, planning and actual work to do justice to."
--Wayne Pascoe
Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > In article <fmjamu$qap$01$3...@news.t-online.com>,
> > Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> > Nope. Hadron claimed it WAS a security risk. You said he was wrong.
> >>
> >> No. I have never talked about his WPA claim at all. And you know that.
> >
> > You said he was wrong, after he made his WPA statement, and you were
> > aware of that statement (msg < <fl2iiu$26s$03$1...@news.t-online.com>>).
> > Saying someone is wrong is an implicit statement that the opposite of
> > what
>
> So "stating the obvious" is a concept you've never heard of
What's that got to do with anything. You said Hadron was wrong. Was he
in fact wrong or not?
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
It has a lot to do with everything.
> You said Hadron was wrong. Was he in fact wrong or not?
>
Hadron is wrong. That does not preclude that he states the obvious,
like "the sky is blue", "water is wet" or similar things. These might even
include WPA keys.
But then, you knew that.
Aren't you ashamed of yourself to have sunk to such dephts?
Do you really want to emulate Snot in his utter dishonesty?
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Peter, you're wiggling like Erik at his worst.
Hadron wasn't wrong in this subject.
<good sigmonster>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHjqBSd90bcYOAWPYRAuqPAKCisuHgegXqaLT6KWSgVh1OUn6MqACgmRVz
7HQA4Z0TlAlt50RoJ0Ynsm4=
=lcLW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
when you find yourself in a hole, first thing to do, is stop digging...
Tim Smith
You'd have a point if the situation were that you say he's always wrong,
and someone found a true (but obvious) statement by him somewhere that
was unconnected to anything you had said. You could then wiggle around
and perhaps successfully claim that when you say he's wrong about
everything, you obviously don't mean things that are so obviously true
that no one could get them wrong.
However, what happened in this case was that Hadron made a true
statement (whether it was obvious or not is irrelevant), someone else
posted that they agreed with the statement, and you attacked that person
for agreeing with Hadron.
That either means you are disagreeing with Hadron (which is even worse
if his statement was obvious), or you were making a baseless troll
attempt in that thread. Which was it?
--
--Tim Smith
Linonut
> However, what happened in this case was that Hadron made a true
> statement (whether it was obvious or not is irrelevant), someone else
> posted that they agreed with the statement, and you attacked that person
> for agreeing with Hadron.
>
> That either means you are disagreeing with Hadron (which is even worse
> if his statement was obvious), or you were making a baseless troll
> attempt in that thread. Which was it?
Even utter honesty and assholery are not mutually exclusive, and Hadron
is far from utterly honest.
Even though he makes true statements reasonably often, they are overbalanced
by a general unpleasantness in demeanor. There's no need for it.
--
The idea of male and female are universal constants.
-- Kirk, "Metamorphosis", stardate 3219.8
chrisv
>Even utter honesty and assholery are not mutually exclusive, and Hadron
>is far from utterly honest.
>
>Even though he makes true statements reasonably often, they are overbalanced
>by a general unpleasantness in demeanor. There's no need for it.
He's an asshole. Really and truly.
DFS
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> How's that different from when you said that a screenshot could not
>> show the effects of antialiasing?
>
> It is different because I said that I was wrong
It's very unlikely you acted like an adult.
Peter Köhlmann
I don't care what you find "unlikely" or not
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
Hadron
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> However, what happened in this case was that Hadron made a true
>> statement (whether it was obvious or not is irrelevant), someone else
>> posted that they agreed with the statement, and you attacked that person
>> for agreeing with Hadron.
>>
>> That either means you are disagreeing with Hadron (which is even worse
>> if his statement was obvious), or you were making a baseless troll
>> attempt in that thread. Which was it?
>
> Even utter honesty and assholery are not mutually exclusive, and Hadron
> is far from utterly honest.
>
> Even though he makes true statements reasonably often, they are overbalanced
> by a general unpleasantness in demeanor. There's no need for it.
So says liarnut, the group schizo. Calling people names, killfiling,
telling lies and generally being a dishonest shill is a day to day role
for him. Yet god help anyone who does the same to him. Oh, and did I
mention a terrible sense of humour?
Hadron
It's also a lot more fundamental and proof of a bullshitter and a
liar. People can screw up acronyms/names easily enough (as Spike1 did in
the original post and I went on to do but acknowledged it) and it's not
really a big deal. But to venture an opinion on how something so
fundamental as AA works and be completely wrong shows a weakness of
character and technical ineptitude that is so common in Peter's
posts. The windows using hypocrite that he is.
Peter Köhlmann
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>
>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> However, what happened in this case was that Hadron made a true
>>> statement (whether it was obvious or not is irrelevant), someone else
>>> posted that they agreed with the statement, and you attacked that person
>>> for agreeing with Hadron.
>>>
>>> That either means you are disagreeing with Hadron (which is even worse
>>> if his statement was obvious), or you were making a baseless troll
>>> attempt in that thread. Which was it?
>>
>> Even utter honesty and assholery are not mutually exclusive, and Hadron
>> is far from utterly honest.
>>
>> Even though he makes true statements reasonably often, they are
>> overbalanced
>> by a general unpleasantness in demeanor. There's no need for it.
> So says liarnut, the group schizo. Calling people names,
The irony
> killfiling, telling lies and generally being a dishonest shill is a day to
> day role for him.
You are sure you are not talking about yourself, "true linux advocate"
Hadron Quark?
> Yet god help anyone who does the same to him. Oh, and
> did I mention a terrible sense of humour?
Well, even that would be lots more than you show
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Form follows malfunction.
Linonut
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> So says liarnut, the group schizo. Calling people names,
>> killfiling, telling lies and generally being a dishonest shill is a day to
>> day role for him.
>
>> Yet god help anyone who does the same to him. Oh, and
>> did I mention a terrible sense of humour?
>
> Well, even that would be lots more than you show
Actually, I'm beginning to wonder if Hadron is even /sane/.
--
Dave Mack: "Your stupidity, Allen, is simply not up to par."
Allen Gwinn: "Yours is."
Mark Kent
> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> So says liarnut, the group schizo. Calling people names,
>>> killfiling, telling lies and generally being a dishonest shill is a day to
>>> day role for him.
>>
>>> Yet god help anyone who does the same to him. Oh, and
>>> did I mention a terrible sense of humour?
>>
>> Well, even that would be lots more than you show
>
> Actually, I'm beginning to wonder if Hadron is even /sane/.
>
Not in terms you or I might understand. His behaviour clearly shows
this.