My Experience with the Linux
Egg Troll
I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community
at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source
based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing
as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying
technology.
I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to
back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult
for, we wanted to integrate the shareware version of Linux into our
server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing
fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of
several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high
that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which
were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of
serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in
VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't
believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go
just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code
that's every bit as fast. I took it upon myself to configure the
system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to
increase the execution speed of the binaries. I integrated the 3
machines I had configured into the server pool, and I'd have to say
the results were less than impressive... We all know that linux isn't
even close to being ready for the desktop, but I had heard that it was
supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system. The
3 machines all went into swap immediately, and it was obvious that
they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this "enterprise"
environment. After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had
experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing! Granted,
Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in
their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full
fledged development team devoted to it. Not to mention the fact that
the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled
filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that
since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with
some level of stability. After several days of this type of behaviour,
we decided to reinstall windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't
a hardware problem that was causing things to go wrong. The machines
instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the server
pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the
Linux boxes.
Needless to say, I won't be reccomending Linux/FSF to anymore of my
clients. I'm dissappointed that they won't be able to leverege the
free cost of Linux to their advantage, but in this case I suppose the
old adage stands true that, "you get what you pay for." I would have
also liked to have access to the source code of the applications that
we're running on our mission critical systems; however, from the looks
of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the
same freedoms as the GPL.
As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to
compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming,
but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows
98/NT/2K are your only choices.
thank you.
egg troll
Peter Köhlmann
<Lots of bullshit>
Troll elsewhere, moron
Peter
--
W.I.N.D.O.W.S.:
Wireless Intelligent Neohuman Designed for Observation and Worldwide
Sabotage
Damon Brinkley
Ha Ha Ha...Hold on let me catch my breath.....alright. That's got to be the
most hilarious piece of crap I've ever heard. You need to do some studying
up on what you're planning on bashing before trying to act like you know
what you're talking about. You've obviously never installed or used Linux
before....it's obvious from your post. Linux has plenty of support for
journaled filesystems and SMP support and the latest kernel isn't 2.4.9.
I guess there's tons of people doing the wrong thing by using the 'weekend
hackers' http server. Give me a break.
Todd R.
<Garbage snipped>
What a steaming load of FUD.
Where shall we begin??
>we wanted to integrate the shareware version of Linux into our
> server pool
Shareware version? No such thing.
>We all know that linux isn't
> even close to being ready for the desktop
I must hAv missed that, as I've been running Linux Mandrake on my desktop
for three years now. Way more stable than windows 98 ever was...
>The 3 machines all went into swap immediately
No way to qualify this as the poster does not teel us what kind of machines
he was running, but cut down the resources anough and any OS will do this.
>After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had
>experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing!
I've run an awful lot of applications on my Linux boxes (including Apache)
and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER has an application caused a kernel panic.
>Not to mention the fact that
> the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled
> filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc
NONE of this is true. In fact, on Linux you can pick from a variety of
journaled file systems.
>Needless to say, I won't be reccomending Linux/FSF to anymore of my
> clients.
As clueless as this guy is, I'm amazed that he/she has any clients at all,
and woe to the ones he does have.
Todd
mlw
>
> I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think
> I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community
> at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source
> based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing
> as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying
> technology.
Funny, I've been in the business for almost 20 years, and I (nor anyone I know)
sees it that way.
>
> I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to
> back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult
> for, we wanted to integrate the shareware version of Linux into our
> server pool.
Linux is not shareware.
> The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing
> fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of
> several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high
> that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which
> were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of
> serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
>
> I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in
> VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming.
WTF are you talking about? Kernel programming in VB? You are making all this
up.
[pointless idiocy snipped]
philicorda
> I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think
> I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community
> at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source
> based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing
> as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying
> technology.
>
LOL! Thanks for raising the standard of trolling in this ng!
> egg troll
Richard Thrippleton
<snip experiences with lunix>
>thank you.
>
>egg troll
Hmm, there's something about this guy that makes me think he might
be a troll... can't quite put my finger on it though ;)
Richard
--
Richard 'aj' Thrippleton
"handsome, charming and genuinely good at bringing in the money"
E-mail:<re...@cam.ac.uk>
Homepage:http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~ret28
Tuomo Takkula
ROTFLL!
This was great. I took it serious for the first lines, then thought,
'why, that's written by someone really dumb', and finally, I started
to switch between laughing and reading.
Please, gimme more of this stuff!
I feel a bit like someone who was badly cought by an April's
fool. Especially the part about kernel programming in VB is hilarious,
and of course, 'shareware Linux', that's just great.
> egg troll
Cheers
Tuomo
--
___
"Microsoft OS's are good because they encourage Intel to produce
faster CPUs for the rest of us to run Unix on."
George Dau
Bones
> I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies,
Looks like their cutting back on spending, what with you having to post from
Google and all.
> I believe that part of the reason that open source based startups are
> failing... [is] an issue of the underlying technology.
No, I disagree. They are failing because lots of people and companies lost
money on the stock market, consumer spending hasn't been up to par lately,
and an IT staff is not likely to undertake a project such as a complete
network overhaul on a tight budget. You see, when you pay per-seat licensing
costs, it leaves precious little money left for other things.
> I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to
> back it up!
Great! Please present the evidence.
> At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult for, we wanted
> to integrate the shareware version of Linux into our server pool.
There is no shareware version of Linux. Not that this makes a big difference
in your argument. But I can see where this is going: "Linux doesn't
integrate completely with proprietary Microsoft networks, therefore it is
useless."
> The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing fees was too
> great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of several boxes running the
> new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff
> with the Windows 2k boxes which were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at
> their respective tasks of serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
Great, but I wish you'd asked for someone's opinion of the older 2.4 kernels
in a "serving" environment before testing the boxen; I'd recommend 2.2.19 or
2.2.20. I made the decision to use Linux for our web-serving, e-mail, and
firewalling two years ago. I do not regret that decision, as I haven't had a
single problem since. I also have a newer Linux box serving database
connections, active content and other internal web stuff. This machine has
functioned flawlessly as well. I added yet another Linux box a couple of
months ago. This machine does file and print sharing with Samba... Once
again, a success story.
> I consider myself to be very technically inclined
Then you would have known the difference between "shareware" and open source
software. You'd also know enough *not* run a group of test servers along
with a bunch of production servers on the same network.
> having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level
> programming.
"Kernel-level programming?" With Visual Basic? I don't think so.
> I don't believe in C programming because contrary to popular
> belief, VB can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler
> generates code that's every bit as fast.
Visual Basic code is not portable to any other platforms, and knowledge of
it is not useful outside of programming GUI Windows applications. I will
grant that compiled VB code can be fast, but you obviously have no idea how
flexible C is.
> I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used
> an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to increase the execution speed of the
> binaries.
Wow, could this get any worse? Here we have a guy sticking developmental
servers with code re-compiled on an unstable version of gcc, and running it
all on a network full of production servers. The proverbial match in the
powder room!
> I integrated the 3 machines I had configured into the server pool,
^^^^^^^^^^
Amazing, and here I was thinking that Samba didn't yet support Active
Directory when the 2.4.9 kernel was released.
> and I'd have to say the results were less than impressive... We all know
> that linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop,
Obviously not, since most of us are using Linux on the desktop right at this
moment. I've been using it on the desktop since '95.
> but I had heard that it was supposed to perform decently as a "server"
> based operating system. The 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and
> it was obvious that they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this
> "enterprise" environment.
OK, why was that? The machine I'm currently working on is currently serving
static content to my organization. It is doing a damn fine job too. Did I
also mention that it's a 486/66? I've yet to notice a major performance
problem in my Linux machines, save for that KDE file manager and listing
thousands of filenames issue.
> After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had experienced kernel
> panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing!
You're insane, Apache is rock solid. I have *never* witnessed an Apache
crash, and if I did, I'm certain that it wouldn't cause a kernel panic. Bind
is also solid as well, just make sure it's got all of the security patches
installed.
> Granted, Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in
> their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full
> fledged development team devoted to it.
No, Apache Server is the direct descendant of NCSA's Httpd server, the
original "web" server. The Apache Server developers are careful, and produce
high-quality code. IIS is a cheap knock-off of the Netscape web-server,
which was a copy of Httpd. Needless to say, a copy of a copy isn't quite as
sharp as the original.
Please note that "professional" merely means that someone is paid for their
efforts, although I can see by the context that you intended to show that
Microsoft has developers who produce high-quality code. I believe the term
you were looking for was "expert," as in, "expert software developers don't
release products with vulnerabilities that get discovered in bunches of
ten."
> Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for
> any type of journaled filesystem,
That's a bogus claim. Most full Linux distros ship with support for at least
two journal-ing file-systems.
> memory protection, SMP support, etc,
Both of those claims are entirely bogus. "Etcetera" is used when you wish to
indicate that you would have listed more of the same. What are you leaving
off? Are there other types of memory protection and multi-processor support
that Linux doesn't, but should have?
> After several days of this type of behaviour, we decided to reinstall
> windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't a hardware problem that was
> causing things to go wrong.
After days of /what/ behavior, not having journaling file-systems, memory
protection and SMP? Please, feel free to be a little more vague. "We did
some things and had some problems so we un-did the stuff we had previously
done."
> The machines instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the
> server pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the
> Linux boxes.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... Hhhhhha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh jeez
<wipes tears from cheek>... Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Please, no more. Windows 2000 overtaxes typical (2 year old) equipment *just
booting up and displaying the desktop.*
[snip]
> I would have also liked to have access to the source code of the
> applications that we're running on our mission critical systems; however,
> from the looks of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer
> all of the same freedoms as the GPL.
Uh huh. So when do I get to see the complete and well-documented source code
for Windows and all Microsoft applications? /That/ is the freedom of the
GPL. If "shared source" does not offer this freedom, then you are only
getting Microsoft-approved code samples. Go buy a Petzold book if that's
what you want.
> As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to
> compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming,
> but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows
> 98/NT/2K are your only choices.
Well, you've got the part about Microsoft being the "only choices" right.
That is the case for the majority of the computing public wishing to
purchase a new computer.
I'll be on the look-out for your "evidence."
--
Bones
(fakemccoy at altavista dot com)
Bones
> I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies,
Looks like they're cutting back on spending, what with you having to post
from Google and all.
> I believe that part of the reason that open source based startups are
> failing... [is] an issue of the underlying technology.
No, I disagree. They are failing because lots of people and companies lost
money on the stock market, consumer spending hasn't been up to par lately,
and an IT staff is not likely to undertake a project such as a complete
network overhaul on a tight budget. You see, when you pay per-seat licensing
costs, it leaves precious little money left for other things.
> I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to
> back it up!
Great! Please present the evidence.
> At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult for, we wanted
> to integrate the shareware version of Linux into our server pool.
There is no shareware version of Linux. Not that this makes a big difference
in your argument. But I can see where this is going: "Linux doesn't
integrate completely with proprietary Microsoft networks, therefore it is
useless."
> The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing fees was too
> great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of several boxes running the
> new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff
> with the Windows 2k boxes which were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at
> their respective tasks of serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
Great, but I wish you'd asked for someone's opinion of the older 2.4 kernels
in a "serving" environment before testing the boxen; I'd recommend 2.2.19 or
2.2.20. I made the decision to use Linux for our web-serving, e-mail, and
firewalling two years ago. I do not regret that decision, as I haven't had a
single problem since. I also have a newer Linux box serving database
connections, active content and other internal web stuff. This machine has
functioned flawlessly as well. I added yet another Linux box a couple of
months ago. This machine does file and print sharing with Samba... Once
again, a success story.
> I consider myself to be very technically inclined
Then you would have known the difference between "shareware" and open source
software. You'd also know enough *not* run a group of test servers along
with a bunch of production servers on the same network.
> having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level
> programming.
"Kernel-level programming?" With Visual Basic? I don't think so.
> I don't believe in C programming because contrary to popular
> belief, VB can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler
> generates code that's every bit as fast.
Visual Basic code is not portable to any other platforms, and knowledge of
it is not useful outside of programming GUI Windows applications. I will
grant that compiled VB code can be fast, but you obviously have no idea how
flexible C is.
> I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used
> an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to increase the execution speed of the
> binaries.
Wow, could this get any worse? Here we have a guy sticking developmental
servers with code re-compiled on an unstable version of gcc, and running it
all on a network full of production servers. The proverbial match in the
powder room!
> I integrated the 3 machines I had configured into the server pool,
^^^^^^^^^^
Amazing, and here I was thinking that Samba didn't yet support Active
Directory when the 2.4.9 kernel was released.
> and I'd have to say the results were less than impressive... We all know
> that linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop,
Obviously not, since most of us are using Linux on the desktop right at this
moment. I've been using it on the desktop since '95.
> but I had heard that it was supposed to perform decently as a "server"
> based operating system. The 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and
> it was obvious that they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this
> "enterprise" environment.
OK, why was that? The machine I'm currently working on is currently serving
static content to my organization. It is doing a damn fine job too. Did I
also mention that it's a 486/66? I've yet to notice a major performance
problem in my Linux machines, save for that KDE file manager and listing
thousands of filenames issue.
> After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had experienced kernel
> panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing!
You're insane, Apache is rock solid. I have *never* witnessed an Apache
crash, and if I did, I'm certain that it wouldn't cause a kernel panic. Bind
is also solid as well, just make sure it's got all of the security patches
installed.
> Granted, Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in
> their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full
> fledged development team devoted to it.
No, Apache Server is the direct descendant of NCSA's Httpd server, the
original "web" server. The Apache Server developers are careful, and produce
high-quality code. IIS is a cheap knock-off of the Netscape web-server,
which was a copy of Httpd. Needless to say, a copy of a copy isn't quite as
sharp as the original.
Please note that "professional" merely means that someone is paid for their
efforts, although I can see by the context that you intended to show that
Microsoft has developers who produce high-quality code. I believe the term
you were looking for was "expert," as in, "expert software developers don't
release products with vulnerabilities that get discovered in bunches of
ten."
> Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for
> any type of journaled filesystem,
That's a bogus claim. Most full Linux distros ship with support for at least
two journal-ing file-systems.
> memory protection, SMP support, etc,
Both of those claims are entirely bogus. "Etcetera" is used when you wish to
indicate that you would have listed more of the same. What are you leaving
off? Are there other types of memory protection and multi-processor support
that Linux doesn't, but should have?
> After several days of this type of behaviour, we decided to reinstall
> windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't a hardware problem that was
> causing things to go wrong.
After days of /what/ behavior, not having journaling file-systems, memory
protection and SMP? Please, feel free to be a little more vague. "We did
some things and had some problems so we un-did the stuff we had previously
done."
> The machines instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the
> server pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the
> Linux boxes.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... Hhhhhha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh jeez
<wipes tears from cheek>... Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Please, no more. Windows 2000 overtaxes typical (2 year old) equipment *just
booting up and displaying the desktop.*
[snip]
> I would have also liked to have access to the source code of the
> applications that we're running on our mission critical systems; however,
> from the looks of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer
> all of the same freedoms as the GPL.
Uh huh. So when do I get to see the complete and well-documented source code
for Windows and all Microsoft applications? /That/ is the freedom of the
GPL. If "shared source" does not offer this freedom, then you are only
getting Microsoft-approved code samples. Go buy a Petzold book if that's
what you want.
> As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to
> compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming,
> but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows
> 98/NT/2K are your only choices.
Well, you've got the part about Microsoft being the "only choices" right.
Frederique Rijsdijk
great post man, but where's the cat?
-- F
amonre
Hash: SHA1
Wow I didn't think it was possible to see so many lies in one post before.
To a newbie or untrained eye it may actually look like the guy has the
right to be bitching. To people that have actually USED the Linux OS we all
know several facts this person has left off
1) applications on Linux DO NOT CAUSE KERNEL PANICS unless they are access a
faulty driver or kernel module that is corrupted. For example if I unplug
my CAT5 cable on one of my ethernet cards and then plug it back up the
kernel panics...but it doesn't do this on the other two DIFFERENT NIC cards
2) Apcahe has a track record and assocciating a kernel panic with it is
laughable at best.
3) VB programming. I have developed several VB 6.0 applications (I decided
to stop all new projects on it when I heard that MS was dropping VB 6.0
support for .Net in a few years). VB is a RAD environment...no not RAD as
in cool...RAD as in Rapid Application Development. It was never ment for
low level coding like the kernel. IT IS FOR HIGH LEVEL CODING LIKE GUI
DEVELOPMENT...for christ sakes Inheritance doesn't even exist in 6.0! VB is
and allways will be a wrapper around C/C++ API calls. No matter what you
may do in VB...import all the dlls and API you want into it...it is not and
was never ment to be as flexable as C/C++.
4) I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies...hmmmm
consultant...last time I checked they don't do much work. In fact they kind
of tick me off. They design this complex systems that sure they'll work but
there are fifty other designs that would usually be 10X better and easier
then what they suggest.....after all they don't have to build the systems.
Consultants are funny...well the ones I've seen anyway.
5) nice e-mail address eggt...@yahoo.com we really should ban all free
e-mail accounts.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8vcSvkYb5Me5vszkRAstvAJ4zVYsacxCCl4wcLhvkR5W1eUQmpwCfQD7S
xt9OxA5WYQopOGoGrwkfQds=
=pQ0T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kenneth Downs
> I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think
> I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community
> at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source
> based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing
> as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying
> technology.
Hmmm...., this might be interesting.
>
> I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to
> back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult
> for, we wanted to integrate the shareware version of Linux into our
> server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing
> fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of
> several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high
> that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which
> were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of
> serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
>
> I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in
> VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't
> believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go
> just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code
> that's every bit as fast.
BZZZZZZT! Time to stop reading. And now to pick myself up off the floor
where I've been laughing...
--
Ken
Linux, the more you learn, the more you love
Phil Jackson
> the new 2.4.9 kernel
im using 2.4.18, I *must* be bleeding edge!
> having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level
> programming.
This is the point I knew this was a joke or a lier.
> I don't believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB
> can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code
> that's every bit as fast.
You really are an abosolute moron aren't you. Why did you take the time to
write so much shite?
> I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used
> an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to increase the execution speed of the
> binaries.
I thought you didn't belive in C?
> linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop
I use it at home and university, I use nothing else. It works better than
Windows on the desktop.
> After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had experienced kernel
> panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing!
I don't think thats possible. Not unless with your welth of low level kernel
VB coding you integrated Apache into the kernel.
> Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for
> any type of journaled filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc,
Im about to save this on my ext3 journaled fs, but its ok, it won't take
long because I have TWO processors...dick head.
Reply to this and challege anything I've said here, I look forward to making
you look like a twat again!
Phil
gswork
> I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies,
Ya...right.
> I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to
> back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult
> for, we wanted to integrate the shareware version of Linux into our
> server pool.
Shareware? You mean like Doom & Commander Keen were? heehee
> I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in
> VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming.
Like
TextBox.Kernel.DoStuff()
This is getting funnier!
> I don't
> believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go
> just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code
> that's every bit as fast.
1. VB can go into the Win32 API if you don;t mind translating the
16-bit data structures in VB to the 32 Bit structures of Win32. You
can't go lower than that.
2. The latest VB compiler is VB.NET. All your legacy code are belong
to the bin.
> We all know that linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop
Indeed. You really have to install it on a PC first.
> As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to
> compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming,
So that's what all those professors get up to!
> thank you.
No, Thank you for the laughs.
Or perhaps this was all about a pet cat called linux?
chrisv
>Granted,
>Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in
>their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full
>fledged development team devoted to it. Not to mention the fact that
>the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled
>filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that
>since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with
>some level of stability.
I've seen worse trolls, but I've seen much better, too. The above
paragraph is much too obvious. You'll have to try harder.
Egg Troll
> > Egg Troll <eggt...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies,
>
> Looks like their cutting back on spending, what with you having to post from
> Google and all.
YHBT! YHL! HAND!!
Bones
Jim Lascola
I "WORK" for a Fortune500 company and your totally full of shit TROLL
Jim
Johan Lindquist
Egg Troll <eggt...@yahoo.com> suddenly blurted:
> YHBT! YHL! HAND!!
LTBFYPW.
Well, SHTSI.
cheers,
/Johan
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
9:29am up 32 days, 10:05, 4 users, load average: 1.04, 1.17, 1.20
$ cat /dev/bollocks
optimize integrated content
Quantum Leaper
"Jim Lascola" <jimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4db3c04.02041...@posting.google.com...
Simple question, how much Linux does your company use?
Damon Brinkley
My company uses a lot more Linux on the servers than it does Microsoft. We
have about 5 linux servers compared to one NT server. What about your
company?
Rob Hughes
> egg troll
At least the choice of name was appropriate....
Mark Nenadov
> I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think
> I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community
> at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source
> based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing
> as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying
> technology.
>
In the last little while, it isn't open source startups that are
failing--its the majority of all types of tech startups that are failing.
There are definately many open source startups that are suceeding and many
closed-source startups that are failing.
> I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to
> back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult
> for, we wanted to integrate the shareware version of Linux into our
> server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing
> fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of
> several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high
> that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which
> were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of
> serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
Shareware versions of Linux? Hum... I have a feeling you don't know what
you are speaking of. Were the Win2k boxes serving the HTTP with or without
multiple exploits being manifested?
>
> I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in
> VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't
> believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go
> just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code
> that's every bit as fast. I took it upon myself to configure the
> system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to
> increase the execution speed of the binaries. I integrated the 3
Kernel level programming in VB? AHAHA! :)
> machines I had configured into the server pool, and I'd have to say
> the results were less than impressive... We all know that linux isn't
> even close to being ready for the desktop, but I had heard that it was
> supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system. The
> 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and it was obvious that
> they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this "enterprise"
> environment. After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had
> experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing! Granted,
I've used Linux for years and never experienced a kernel panic. Amazon.com
is running (mostly) on Linux and it seems to be up most of them time! :)
> Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in
> their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full
You are wrong. Did you know that Hewlet Packard has contributed to Apache?
> fledged development team devoted to it. Not to mention the fact that
> the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled
> filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that
> since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with
> some level of stability. After several days of this type of behaviour,
> we decided to reinstall windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't
> a hardware problem that was causing things to go wrong. The machines
> instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the server
> pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the
> Linux boxes.
>
You can use journaled filesystems with Linux.
> Needless to say, I won't be reccomending Linux/FSF to anymore of my
> clients. I'm dissappointed that they won't be able to leverege the
> free cost of Linux to their advantage, but in this case I suppose the
> old adage stands true that, "you get what you pay for." I would have
> also liked to have access to the source code of the applications that
> we're running on our mission critical systems; however, from the looks
> of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the
> same freedoms as the GPL.
Too bad.. you are missing out on an important aspect of the future of
computing.. ever wonder why companies like HP and IBM are recommending
Linux?
Yeah, shared source gives you "all of the freedom". The freedom to look..
not the freedom to touch. Is that really freedom?
>
> As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to
> compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming,
> but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows
> 98/NT/2K are your only choices.
>
Haha.. so you are saying google.com's largely sucessful technologies
running on clusters of Linux boxes is "Hello World" style technology?
I am sorry to say this, but the ignorance of your post is helping Linux
rather than hurting it.
--
-- Mark Nenadov (http://www.freelance-developer.com)
Max Gorouvein
You got any more anecdotes like that?
This made me wonder: "What kinds of cheap shit where you on when you decided
to write all this crap?"
I've been using Linux since 1993. Yeah, back when it would take a couple of
days to properly setup X-Windows (thus no GUI, wow big deal), it's not like
if I would type startx and it wouldn't startup simply because I didn't have
enough BASE memory, but because XF86Config was not setup properly...Yet I
would still be able to configure X with the help of people from the net.
Anyways, that's the point i'm trying to make here.
Linux had come a long way, and yes it is MUCH MORE stable as a desktop than
any other Windows. W2K stable? Maybe you are right, but I don't think so.
It only takes me 2-3 days until I have to reboot the damn thing, and I'm not
even running anything heavy on the poor laptop.
"Egg Troll" <eggt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e2f159f.02041...@posting.google.com...
> I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think
> I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community
> at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source
> based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing
> as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying
> technology.
>
> I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to
> back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult
> for, we wanted to integrate the shareware version of Linux into our
> server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing
> fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of
> several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high
> that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which
> were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of
> serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.
HTTP requests? For sure dude! Except for that vulnarability in IIS,
otherwise it's ok (RIGHT!).
>
> I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in
> VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't
> believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go
> just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code
> that's every bit as fast. I took it upon myself to configure the
> system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to
> increase the execution speed of the binaries. I integrated the 3
> machines I had configured into the server pool, and I'd have to say
> the results were less than impressive...
I'm not a programmer, nor will I ever be, but low level programming in VB?
Sure, that sounds like fun. How do you do that?
> We all know that linux isn't
> even close to being ready for the desktop, but I had heard that it was
> supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system. The
> 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and it was obvious that
> they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this "enterprise"
> environment. After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had
> experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing! Granted,
> Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in
> their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full
> fledged development team devoted to it.
Before you choke in your own barfs from telling all this bullshit, perhaps
you should visit www.netcraft.com and see which web server is at the top.
I'm just wondering here, could it be Apache? DAMN FUCKING right it is.
Why? Well, perhaps it's more stable, flexable, robust and MUCH less
vulnurable than IIS. (I actually haven't heard anything about Apache
vulnarabilities... I don't think there are any, probably none.)
> Not to mention the fact that
> the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled
> filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that
> since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with
> some level of stability. After several days of this type of behaviour,
> we decided to reinstall windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't
> a hardware problem that was causing things to go wrong. The machines
> instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the server
> pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the
> Linux boxes.
Journaling filesystems: jfs, ext3. SMP Support: do some research!
>
> Needless to say, I won't be reccomending Linux/FSF to anymore of my
> clients. I'm dissappointed that they won't be able to leverege the
> free cost of Linux to their advantage, but in this case I suppose the
> old adage stands true that, "you get what you pay for." I would have
> also liked to have access to the source code of the applications that
> we're running on our mission critical systems; however, from the looks
> of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the
> same freedoms as the GPL.
>
> As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to
> compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming,
> but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows
> 98/NT/2K are your only choices.
>
> thank you.
>
> egg troll
Hmm, looks like you shouldn't recommend Linux to any of your clients since
you are clueless and you don't what you are talking about.
Now, I'm sure you've read enough of these comments, so before you start
crying and tell your mommy about us, why don't you go and catch up on all
the things that Linux has to offer.
Max G.
Jurgen De Backer
as a matter of fact, for years i've been programming Windows apps using
assembly language, produces far less lines of code I'd say....
J.
"Egg Troll" <eggt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e2f159f.02041...@posting.google.com...
tom
Consultant for them? Are they still in business?
I want to work for them, I want to get paid.
Kernel level programming? I looked up the coders in 2.4.2 -2.4.18.
funny, your name, or your email-id is not there. Checked.
Are you sure you weren't working on Windows Machines, and they
gave you a blue screen of death, stating kernel panic?
My above statement sounds a lot more plausible.
Egg Troll wrote:
>
> I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think
> I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community
> at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source
> based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing
> as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying
> technology.
[ snipped due to stupidity ]
---tm---
Some of the easiest distro's for newbies to try:
http://www.Caldera.com
http://www.Lycoris.com
http://www.mandrake-linux.com/en/
All at http://www.linuxiso.org/
Powered By: Caldera Open Linux, 2.4.13, KDE 2.2.2
Linux Registration Number : 184093, http://counter.li.org
Stephen Biggs
topic, wouldn't you say?
RayOfLight
million requests per day and yet has never crashed. Would a windows
machine stands this Mr Backer?
So many big web sites migrated to Linux and BSD after they have
started small with windows and after there visits per day increased
dramatically they had to migrate to Linux/BSD as there windows machine
could not stand the traffic!
Linux is here to stay despite the bad reviews of some 'knowledgeable'
people!