An OT post for Sjaak Zomer, this one's for you!
baby_matthew
research so I can show everyone just how wrong you are...you see...this is
what happens when you try and get in a debate with me about computer
stuff...you lose....
-Baby Matthew
################################################
Linux Myths
Posted: October 4, 1999
With all the recent attention around Linux as an operating system, it's
important to step back from the hype and look at the reality. First, it's
worth noting that Linux is a UNIX-like operating system. Linux
fundamentally relies on 30-year-old operating system technology and
architecture. Linux was not designed from the ground-up to support
symmetrical multiprocessing (SMP), graphical user interfaces (GUI),
asynchronous I/O, fine-grained security model, and many other important
characteristics of a modern operating system. These architectural
limitations mean that as customers look for a platform to cost effectively
deploy scalable, secure, and robust applications, Linux simply cannot
deliver on the hype.
Myth: Linux performs better than Windows NT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality: Windows NT 4.0 Outperforms Linux On Common Customer Workloads
The Linux community claims to have improved performance and scalability in
the latest versions of the Linux Kernel (2.2), however it's clear that
Linux remains inferior to the Windows NT® 4.0 operating system.
a.. For File and Print services, according to independent tests conducted
by PC Week Labs, the Windows NT 4.0 operating system delivers 52 percent
better performance on a single processor system and 110 percent better
performance on a 4-way system than similarly configured single processor
and 4-way Linux/SAMBA systems.
b.. For Web servers, the same PC Week tests showed Windows NT 4.0 with
Internet Information Server 4.0 delivers 41 percent better performance on a
single processor system and 125 percent better performance on a 4-way
system than Linux and Apache.
c.. For e-commerce workloads using secure sockets (SSL), recent PC
Magazine tests showed Windows NT 4.0 with Internet Information Server 4.0
delivers approximately five times the performance provided by Linux and
Stronghold.
d.. For transaction-orientated Line of Business applications, Windows NT
4.0 has achieved a result of 40,368 tpmC at a cost of $18.46 per
transaction on a Compaq 8-Way Pentium III XEON processor-based system. This
industry leading price/performance result from the transaction processing
council clearly shows how Windows NT can deliver world-class performance
for heavy duty transaction processing. It's interesting to note that there
is not a single TPC result on any database running on Linux, and therefore
Linux has yet to demonstrate their capabilities as a database server.
e.. Linux performance and scalability is architecturally limited in the
2.2 Kernel. Linux only supports 2 gigabytes (GB) of RAM on the x86
architecture,1 compared to 4 GB for Windows NT 4.0. The largest file size
Linux supports is 2 GB versus 16 terabytes (TB) for Windows NT 4.0. The
Linux SWAP file is limited to 128 MB RAM. In addition, Linux does not
support many of the modern operating system features that Windows NT 4.0
has pioneered such as asynchronous I/O, completion ports, and fine-grained
kernel locks. These architecture constraints limit the ability of Linux to
scale well past two processors.
f.. The Linux community continues to promise major SMP and performance
improvements. They have been promising these since the development of the
2.0 Kernel in 1996. Delivering a scalable system is a complex task and it's
not clear that the Linux community can solve these issues easily or
quickly. As D. H. Brown Associates noted in a recent technical report,2 the
Linux 2.2 Kernel remains in the early stages of providing a tuned SMP
kernel.
Myth: Linux is more reliable than Windows NT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality: Linux Needs Real World Proof Points Rather than Anecdotal Stories
The Linux community likes to talk about Linux as a stable and reliable
operating system, yet there is no real world data or metrics and very
limited customer evidence to back up these claims.
a.. Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 has been proven in demanding customer
environments to be a reliable operating system. Customers such as Barnes
and Noble, The Boeing Company, Chicago Stock Exchange, Dell Computer, First
Union Capital Markets, Nasdaq and many others run mission critical
applications on Windows NT 4.0.
b.. Linux lacks a commercial quality Journaling File System. This means
that in the event of a system failure, such as a power outage, data loss or
corruption is possible. In any event, the system must check the integrity
of the file system during system restart, a process that will likely
consume an extended amount of time, especially on large volumes and may
require manual intervention to reconstruct the file system.
c.. There are no commercially proven clustering technologies to provide
High Availability for Linux. The Linux community may point to numerous
projects and small companies that are aiming to deliver HA functionality.
D. H. Brown recently noted that these offerings remain immature and largely
unproven in the demanding business world.
d.. There are no OEMs that provide uptime guarantees for Linux, unlike
Windows NT where Compaq, Data General, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and Unisys
provide 99.9 percent system-level uptime guarantees for Windows NT-based
servers.
Myth: Linux is Free
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality: Free Operating System Does Not Mean Low Total Cost of Ownership
The Linux community will talk about the free or low-cost nature of Linux.
It's important to understand that licensing cost is only a small part of
the overall decision-making process for customers.
a.. The cost of the operating system is only a small percentage of the
overall total cost of ownership (TCO). In general Windows NT has proven to
have a lower cost of ownership than UNIX. Previous studies have shown that
Windows NT has 37 percent lower TCO than UNIX. There is no reason to
believe that Linux is significantly different than other versions of UNIX
when it comes to TCO.
b.. The very definition of Linux as an Open Software effort means that
commercial companies like Red Hat will make money by charging for services.
Therefore, commercial support services for Linux will be fee-based and will
likely be priced at a premium. These costs have to be factored into the
total cost model.
c.. Linux is a UNIX-like operating system and is therefore complex to
configure and manage. Existing UNIX users may find the transition to Linux
easier but administrators for existing Windows®-based or Novell
environments will find it more difficult to handle the complexity of Linux.
This re-training will add significant costs to Linux deployments.
d.. Linux is a higher risk option than Windows NT. For example how many
certified engineers are there for Linux? How easy is it to find skilled
development and support people for Linux? Who performs end-to-end testing
for Linux-based solutions? These factors and more need to be taken into
account when choosing a platform for your business.
Myth: Linux is more secure than Windows NT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality: Linux Security Model Is Weak
All systems are vulnerable to security issues, however it's important to
note that Linux uses the same security model as the original UNIX
implementations- a model that was not designed from the ground up to be
secure.
a.. Linux only provides access controls for files and directories. In
contrast, every object in Windows NT, from files to operating system data
structures, has an access control list and its use can be regulated as
appropriate.
b.. Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate
administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability
must be made a full administrator, which compromises best security
practices. In contrast, Windows NT allows an administrator to delegate
privileges at an exceptionally fine-grained level.
c.. Linux has not supported key security accreditation standards. Every
member of the Windows NT family since Windows NT 3.5 has been evaluated at
either a C2 level under the U.S. Government's evaluation process or at a
C2-equivalent level under the British Government's ITSEC process. In
contrast, no Linux products are listed on the U.S. Government's evaluated
product list.
d.. Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time
understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them.
This is made complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location
for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast Microsoft
provides a single security repository for notification and fixes of
security related issues.
e.. Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert
in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact.
Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be
vulnerable to attack. Windows NT security is easy to set up and administer
with tools such as the Security Configuration Editor.
Myth: Linux can replace Windows on the desktop
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality: Linux Makes No Sense at the Desktop
Linux as a desktop operating system makes no sense. A user would end up
with a system that has fewer applications, is more complex to use and man
age, and is less intuitive.
a.. Linux does not provide support for the broad range of hardware in use
today; Windows NT 4.0 currently supports over 39,000 systems and devices on
the Hardware Compatibility List. Linux does not support important
ease-of-use technologies such as Plug and Play, USB, and Power Management
b.. The complexity of the Linux operating system and cumbersome nature of
the existing GUI's would make retraining end-users a huge undertaking and
would add significant cost
c.. Linux application support is very limited, meaning that customers end
up having to build their own horizontal and vertical applications. A recent
report from Forrester Research highlighted the fact that today 93 percent
of enterprise ISVs develop applications for Windows NT, while only 13
percent develop for Linux.3
Summary
The Linux operating system is not suitable for mainstream usage by business
or home users. Today with Windows NT 4.0, customers can be confident in
delivering applications that are scalable, secure, and reliable--yet cost
effective to deploy and manage. Linux clearly has a long way to go to be
competitive with Windows NT 4.0. With the release of the Windows 2000
operating system, Microsoft extends the technical superiority of the
platform even further ensuring that customers can deliver the next
generation applications to solve their business challenges.
More information
Customer Testimonials
See how these leading companies and organizations have deployed Windows NT
Server 4.0:
a.. Nasdaq
b.. Barnes & Noble
c.. Dell Computer Corp
d.. The Boeing Company
e.. First Union
f.. Chicago Stock Exchange
Performance Data
See Industry Benchmarks Show Windows NT Server 4.0 Outperforms Linux
Footnotes
1. Siemens & SuSE announced a patch in September 1999 to extend to 4 GB,
although this is not part of the 2.2 Kernel or major distributions.
2. Linux: How Good Is It? D. H. Brown Associates Inc. April 1999
3. Forrester Research, Software Vendors Crown Server OS Kings, Aug. 31,
1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Updated: Wednesday, October 06, 1999
© 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use.
Article from:
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
Sjaak Zomer
>I just thought that rather than bitch back and forth I'd just do a little
>research so I can show everyone just how wrong you are...you see...this is
>what happens when you try and get in a debate with me about computer
>stuff...you lose....
>
>-Baby Matthew
Well. Sadly enough I already emailed Matthew privately about the matter,
until I realized that Matthew have such a big ego that he probably post this
also to the newsgroup. I am NOT going to fight about it, but I want to add
some links to some rebutals.
But before I do this, first some general comments. According to the
MS-article Matthew just quoted Linux is trash. But why should a company like
MS write an story like this if this is really true. A good product that is
competing with an obvious inferior product (like they claim) which is more
expensive, doesn't need articles like this!?? If Linux is so bad, why are
big companies like IBM, Nasa, the NOAA and goverments like the Mexican,
Korean and the France supporting it!??
So, to stop this bitching. Do some reading and make up your mind yourself, I
am expecting that most of you have got enough brains to get to their own
conclusions.
RoaringPenguin: Microsoft Lambastes Linux
"Given their assertion during their anti-trust trial that Linux is a serious
competitor to Microsoft Windows, their latest article is surprising. Not
only that, it is full of misleading and inaccurate information. In this
article, I will examine and rebut the Microsoft statements."
http://www.roaringpenguin.com/ms-response.html
Rant Mode Equals One: Linux Reality Versus Microsoft Myth
This is an open letter to the people at Microsoft who irresponsibly posted
some misleading information recently upon their web site. It is the hopes of
the author that they will take these words to task, and clean up their act.
It's my own personal advice.
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/10912.html
RO: MS re-fans anti-Linux flames
"Just about a year ago, an internal Microsoft document on Microsoft's plans
to crush Linux, which came to be called the "Halloween Memo," was the source
of much consternation among the high-tech community."
"This week, Microsoft took another swing at Linux, but this time in a more
planned and public way: by publishing a document called "Linux Myths" on its
Website..."
"Some of Microsoft's claims are more than a little puzzling, such as its
decision to compare the cost of the two operating systems. Free (Linux)
versus hundreds of dollars per copy (NT)? Microsoft says total cost of
ownership should be the real measuring stick when it comes to dollars. But
it seems doubtful that NT would win even on that front."
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2350581,00.html
Wired: Microsoft Lambastes Linux
"Microsoft has finally recognized Linux as a competitor..."
"So why did Microsoft target Linux and not Solaris, the OS from established
competitor Sun Microsystems?"
"It's a very competitive market out there and you need to look at all the
areas of competition," said Aubrey Edwards, group product manager in the
business enterprise division at Microsoft. "There's a lot of interest around
Linux and we need to compete."
http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/22150.html
David Mentré: Some comments on Microsoft Linux Myths page
http://www.irisa.fr/prive/dmentre/ms-linux-myths-fud/
Les Barstow: MS Linux Myths - The Truth Revealed
"After reading the Microsoft Linux Myths page, I couldn't resist posting a
rebuttal (yes, another one).
My focus was on admitting defects, acknowleding recent advances, and
exposing Microsoft's ignorance/falsity.
http://www.faerealm.com/phoenix/MSLinuxMyths.html
2BitsOnline: FUD Attack from the Empire
"I was going to rebuff the Microsoft fuddsters with a point-by-point
rebuttal of their first OPEN attack on Linux on their website, but I can't
get through it without laughing myself sick."
"If you all think back to the DOJ trial and what a juggernaut Linux seemed
to be when these chimps were defending themselves in court, you might see
little differences in their posture. I guess the attitude is "that was then,
this is now"....and we all know "the truth" is as flexible and malleable as
any press release they'd like to put out. This is the only corporate policy
that makes sense of these two very different attitudes - that lying is good
if it keeps market share, or fools the judge..."
"We live in wonderful times if these (highly paid) folks have to spend this
much time and effort to debunk the "myth" that a little "Unix-like"
operating system could actually be a threat to this trillion dollar
company."
http://www.32bitsonline.com/article.php3?file=issues/199910/gloves2&page=1
DoLinux.org: A Response to Microsoft on Linux Myths
http://www.dolinux.org/response.html
Martin Hebrank: My take on the MS Linux Myths document
"I've written up my own response to the Linux Myths document. I believe it's
a good read with solid information that clearly displays the errors and
inconsistancies in the Microsoft document.
It can be found at http://www.nacs.net/~heller/ms/ms_linuxmyths.html"
TechWeb: Microsoft: Linux's Merits Are A Myth
"An article, posted on the Windows NT section of Microsoft's website, takes
Linux apart piece by piece, stating open source advocates are wrong to claim
Linux is more reliable and offers higher performance..."
"The software behemoth concluded, "The Linux operating system is not
suitable for mainstream usage by business or home users..."
"These claims are not real world," said John Winters, proprietor of the
Linux Emporium, a U.K.-based webstore. "I deal with big banks and they have
a procedure of rebooting their NT servers twice a week, so the system is
down when they decide instead of when it feels like it. I last rebooted my
Linux server in April-and then it was only because I was running some new
cabling."
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991006S0008
LWN: A look at Microsoft's Linux Myths
"This week Microsoft took the gloves off and put up this page about "The
Five Linux Myths." It would appear that the long-awaited Microsoft
counteroffensive has begun. This is certainly not the last that we will hear
from them."
"The document makes a number of points, some of which are better than
others. Let's look at a few of them..."
"As can be seen, Microsoft's document is partially truthful, partially not.
It is not, in general, blatantly dishonest. It points at places where work
needs to be done. There is little here that is not well on the way toward
being solved. Given the pace of development in the Linux world, Microsoft's
document will be obsolete very soon."
http://lwn.net/1999/features/MSResponse.phtml
The Register: MS renews assault with 'Linux Myths' document
"Six months on from its last major assault on Linux, Microsoft has returned
to the fray with a "Linux Myths" page, here. The content isn't exactly
original, but it makes it clear first, that Microsoft sees Linux as serious
competition, and second, that it's targeting areas where it thinks it can
score PR and marketing points against the upstart..."
"The truth as regards performance really depends on where you're standing -
from some angles Microsoft has a case, but considering how NT scales against
Unix Risc boxes, this really is a case of pot calling the kettle black..."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991006-000012.html
Martin Brooks: Response to Microsoft's Linux Myths Statement
"Microsoft have produced an comprehensive but presumably not exhaustive list
of why they feel that NT is a better choice overall than Linux. We feel that
some of the points in this article are simply wrong and therefore have
released this response to their article. The 'we' who have contributed are
named at the bottom of the page. Our comments are in bracketed bold
italics."
http://www.hinterlands.f9.co.uk/linuxmyths.html
And maybe something to read about the new Linux 2.4 kernel, which is being
tested as we speak. Oh, BTW you can see for yourself how far they are. No
vault for the Linux kernel, just everything in the open.
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/10698.html
-----
Sjaak Zomer
"I vehemently reject the notion that we were dragging our heels
on this. The absolute minimum expected to fix these things is
two weeks" -Microsoft's lead product manager Jason Garms
baby_matthew
>But before I do this, first some general comments. According to the
>MS-article Matthew just quoted Linux is trash. But why should a company like
>MS write an story like this if this is really true. A good product that is
>competing with an obvious inferior product (like they claim) which is more
>expensive, doesn't need articles like this!?? If Linux is so bad, why are
>big companies like IBM, Nasa, the NOAA and goverments like the Mexican,
>Korean and the France supporting it!??
Hmmm.....and who would rebuttle Microsofts article??? I mean...who would
possibly do that? OH.....companies that....deal in Linux oriented
business...or course. After all, this is a major blow to them and their
companies. Oh...take a GOOD look at a lot of the articles. Unlike
Microsofts they fail to show REAL proof and fail to cite specific sources
for their information....as I've said before do the math, it all adds up.
>RoaringPenguin: Microsoft Lambastes Linux
>http://www.roaringpenguin.com/ms-response.html
Roaring Penguin Software Inc. is a LinuxŽ and UNIXŽ software development
and consulting company.
>Rant Mode Equals One: Linux Reality Versus Microsoft Myth
>http://linuxtoday.com/stories/10912.html
Linux Today is a resource for business professionals interested in
maintaining a high level of awareness of the news pertaining to Linux and
the Open Source (tm) communities.
>RO: MS re-fans anti-Linux flames
>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2350581,00.html
Ahhhh...A REAL unbiased source....be sure to check out the links at the
bottom!
I would go through more but I'm tired and have lots of work to get done.
I'd just go to that last link if you're interested, and then check out the
links at the bottome of it.
-Baby Matthew
Sjaak Zomer
>I just thought that rather than bitch back and forth I'd just do a little
>research so I can show everyone just how wrong you are...you see...this is
>what happens when you try and get in a debate with me about computer
>stuff...you lose....
Well, if you agree with that was stated in Microsoft site (which is an
competitor to Linux) you are lost. I have gave you enough resources, so that
you can find those errors, lies and other strange things in the M$-article.
I can only say this, if you *really* believe that Linux is such a crap and
that Open Source is evil, why do you think that 55% of all ISP servers are
running Apache, and Open Source webserver!?? Why do you think that M$
mentioned Linux as one of their largest competitors, do you really think
that people who dump NT and use Linux instead are stupid.
Anyway, I don't want to have any more email from you. The next batch will be
dumped into the trash-can. Matthew, I don't care about what YOU think. you
are plain wrong and its obviously, that you don't try to read those articles
I have sent you with an open mind. You have had your mind made up, and you
will going to stick with it. I OTOH have made my conclusions based on past
experiences.
So please, get back to the real topic of this newsgroup and keep this
windows=vs=Linux things out of it. None of the us is going to convince the
other side and I have really had enough about your bickering. so...
SHUT UP!!
Sjaak Zomer
>I just thought that rather than bitch back and forth I'd just do a little
>research so I can show everyone just how wrong you are...you see...this is
>what happens when you try and get in a debate with me about computer
>stuff...you lose....
>
>-Baby Matthew
http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/
Sjaak Zomer
>Hmmm.....and who would rebuttle Microsofts article??? I mean...who would
>possibly do that? OH.....companies that....deal in Linux oriented
>business...or course. After all, this is a major blow to them and their
>companies. Oh...take a GOOD look at a lot of the articles. Unlike
>Microsofts they fail to show REAL proof and fail to cite specific sources
>for their information....as I've said before do the math, it all adds up.
Matthew, please be a good boy and think with me for a while!?? So, lets
assume that what I am going to tell you is the truth. Yes, I do know that
you think that its a lie, but just go with me.
1. Microsoft is competing with Linux (and they are LOOSING. If they aren't
loosing why should they bother to write something nasty about Linux!??)
2. Microsoft write bad about Linux.
3. Linux users corrects some of the errors and lies.
My question to you, why do believe MS while those who work with Linux and do
know the good and the bad points of it, doesn't agree with it. The income of
the Linux users doesn't depend on what is going to happen with their OS. Oh,
yes, you missed that little point. There isn't a Linux company. No company
with an financial interest in Linux is going to decide what is going to be
part of the Linux of the future. The Linux users who responded to the MS
lies doesn't have got any cent at stake. Microsoft on the other hand does
have. If Linux does that with Windows what Windows have done with Netscape,
stacker, Corel, the Amgia and any other company that went into the way of MS
it will mean that Billy Gates (and his company) loose BILLIONS.
If Linux is really that big of trash, why did MS-officals mentioned Linux as
their biggest threat in the trials. The people that replace NT with Linux
are no idiots. They have got an real reason for doing this. Institutions
like NASA and the NOAA are using it. Are they all stupid!??
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/39/ns-10514.html
"In what may be the first competitive government contract involving the
Linux operating system, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
last month tagged a Reston, Va.-based company to provide a Linux-based
supercomputer that promises drastic improvements in the ability to forecast
dangerous weather patterns."
"Under the terms of the $15 million contract, High Performance Technologies
Inc. will install the first large-scale cluster of Compaq Computer Corp.'s
XP1000 Alpha workstations running Linux at NOAA's Forecast Systems
Laboratory in Boulder, Colo."
Think.
baby_matthew
>loosing why should they bother to write something nasty about Linux!??)
They're most likely doing it because of Linux hype. You have to admit that
a LOT of people are talking about Linux, and most of them have never even
used it before, or really don't know that much about it. It's like the
whole Imac hype. They talk, and talk, and talk about how easy these things
are, like you just pull it out of the box, hit a button, and you're surfing
the Inet in 7 seconds....doesn't quite work that way.....they work just as
similar as their IBM compat brothers, no different. Unix (or anything
built from it) is not good...and it's not bad...it has its applications and
it can be improved upon, same as Windows (anything)
>2. Microsoft write bad about Linux.
Yup.
>3. Linux users corrects some of the errors and lies.
From all the links you posted I found not one shred of evidence, not one
statistical fact or even a bench test which would prove Linux to be better
that Windows in the sense that they were talking about. All it was, was
talk. Same as always. I can't figure out why those into Linux can't get
their shit together and do some testing and work to prove under what
conditions Linux works better than NT.
>My question to you, why do believe MS while those who work with Linux and do
>know the good and the bad points of it, doesn't agree with it. The income of
>the Linux users doesn't depend on what is going to happen with their OS.
You don't get it, do you? You make it sound like some conspiracy theory.
Both OS are good, but it all depends on what kind of network you're
building. If you've ever read any books on Networking you'll realize that
all the OS have their place in the computing world and not one can "do it
all". But from the original aspect (which you seem to have lost) or
security, NT, is MUCH more secure than Linux. Microsoft has PROVEN this,
and yet all Linux users can do is bitch back that it's not....maybe it's
just that they're too busy patching holes, or looking for the holes they
missed.
>Oh,
>yes, you missed that little point. There isn't a Linux company.
No, I didn't miss it.
>No company
>with an financial interest in Linux is going to decide what is going to be
>part of the Linux of the future.
Wrong!!! There are literally THOUSANDS of companies with financial
interest in it. Do you think they just give the latest version of Red Hat
away? Maybe if you're a warez kiddie. There are hundreds of flavors and
many are owned by companies which sell and make lots of profit. And since
the Linux boom many more companies have started. As an example check out
all the hype on Trinux. Not to mention all the companies which specialize
in Linux installations and such.
>The Linux users who responded to the MS
>lies doesn't have got any cent at stake. Microsoft on the other hand does
>have. If Linux does that with Windows what Windows have done with Netscape,
>stacker, Corel, the Amgia and any other company that went into the way of MS
>it will mean that Billy Gates (and his company) loose BILLIONS.
Reality check bud, Microsoft is MAKING billions, not losing them. Pay
attention you may learn something.
>If Linux is really that big of trash, why did MS-officals mentioned Linux as
>their biggest threat in the trials.
Gee...I wonder why.....maybe because...I dunno....they were at risk of
being split up and needed a good excuse to get out of it?! I mean...this
is kind of a no brainer.
>The people that replace NT with Linux
>are no idiots. They have got an real reason for doing this. Institutions
>like NASA and the NOAA are using it. Are they all stupid!??
No, they simply have different types of network demands. If you're a
network engineer and you're going to be setting up a network say at some
small time corporation and said corporation has like no one who knows
ANYTHING about computers are you REALLY gonna set up Linux?! I mean...come
on....as far as ease of use and familiarity NT is the best.
>http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/39/ns-10514.html
>"In what may be the first competitive government contract involving the
>Linux operating system, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>last month tagged a Reston, Va.-based company to provide a Linux-based
>supercomputer that promises drastic improvements in the ability to forecast
>dangerous weather patterns."
>"Under the terms of the $15 million contract, High Performance Technologies
>Inc. will install the first large-scale cluster of Compaq Computer Corp.'s
>XP1000 Alpha workstations running Linux at NOAA's Forecast Systems
>Laboratory in Boulder, Colo."
The trick here is the XP1000 Alphas....know how much those cost? They make
Linux do some cool shit but they're a little pricey.
>Think.
You know what you should do? You should stop, take a breather, and then
think. It'll give your brain some time to get some oxygen before you start
talking again. Oh and do try to stick to the subject...UNIX SECURITY VS
WINDOWS SECURITY.......
-Baby Matthew
baby_matthew
>competitor to Linux) you are lost.
I never said I agree with Microsoft, but I agree with their research, and
the proven facts which they gave, which is more than all of the rebuttals
that you posted can say. Not one had anything even REMOTELY resembling
real facts, that had been proven. Maybe you missed the fact that those
studies were NOT done by Microsoft?
>I have gave you enough resources, so that
>you can find those errors, lies and other strange things in the M$-article.
>I can only say this, if you *really* believe that Linux is such a crap and
>that Open Source is evil, why do you think that 55% of all ISP servers are
>running Apache, and Open Source webserver!??
Jesus, you're just as bad as your "sources"! WHERE did you get that
number?! I mean...can you cite the source for that number?! Or did you
just do what most people do in arguments and pull some shit outta yer ass
cause it sounds kinda good.
>Why do you think that M$
>mentioned Linux as one of their largest competitors, do you really think
>that people who dump NT and use Linux instead are stupid.
I've already answered that, refer to my other post.
>Anyway, I don't want to have any more email from you. The next batch will be
>dumped into the trash-can. Matthew, I don't care about what YOU think. you
>are plain wrong and its obviously, that you don't try to read those articles
>I have sent you with an open mind. You have had your mind made up, and you
>will going to stick with it. I OTOH have made my conclusions based on past
>experiences.
Oh trust me bud, speaking as a network engineer I have experience, prolly a
LOT more that you have. You see if you did know anything about it you
would understand that BOTH are good OS's and BOTH have uses in different
types of networks. HOWEVER, as far as security (which is what we were
discussing) I am most definitely right. I'm right by proven facts that can
be found in Microsoft's article. Now if the Linux users can get off their
duffs and get it figured out, and prove they can get better security than
Linux I might agree. But when it comes to security I go by facts, not
words spouted off by Steve Jobs wannabe, I'm on a computerized religious
quest, bullshit artists, who are trying to be like Bill but they can't so
all they do is bitch cause they'll never be what he is.
>So please, get back to the real topic of this newsgroup and keep this
>windows=vs=Linux things out of it. None of the us is going to convince the
>other side and I have really had enough about your bickering. so...
No. I find this to be quite stimulating. And certainly more entertaining
than listening to Brain accuse people of molesting him, or Frank
threatening to take down peoples sites cause he's going through the change
of life. And I'm sure there are some who find this argument if nothing
else at least some what entertaining. And at the same time they're prolly
learning some new things, and expanding their horizons. You along with a
lot of the babies in this group constantly bitch about "Let's get back on
topic." But you're so out of it, you've prolly forgotten what the topic
was! I mean, quite your bitching and post something ON TOPIC rather than
bellyache all day.
>SHUT UP!!
You could have done that yourself quite some time ago. I mean...let's
think about this, you're the one who doesn't want to converse...and
yet...you keep doing it. I on the other hand have got no problem with it
and wish to continue this debate. Have you always been this limited or did
it just happen when you got on the Inet?
-Baby Matthew
baby_matthew
baby_matthew
Sjaak Zomer
>>1. Microsoft is competing with Linux (and they are LOOSING. If they aren't
>>loosing why should they bother to write something nasty about Linux!??)
>
>They're most likely doing it because of Linux hype. You have to admit that
>a LOT of people are talking about Linux, and most of them have never even
>used it before, or really don't know that much about it. It's like the
If you mean the guys talking about it in the windows-related mags, I agree
with you. But if you are talking about the professionals IT-ers, no I don't
agree with it. Those who are working as an journalist don't know anything
about Linux or Windows, they are only talking what they have learned some
time ago.
>>3. Linux users corrects some of the errors and lies.
>
>From all the links you posted I found not one shred of evidence, not one
>statistical fact or even a bench test which would prove Linux to be better
>that Windows in the sense that they were talking about. All it was, was
>talk. Same as always. I can't figure out why those into Linux can't get
>their shit together and do some testing and work to prove under what
>conditions Linux works better than NT.
Well, there are as many benchmarks that says that Linux is better than
Windows NT as visa-versa. The problem is, what does benchmarking means if
ONE company is using special-made software while the other uses normal out
of the box software, without some tweaks. There was some talk about the
Mindcraft debacle (for M$) but MS forget to tell about the German-based
benchmark.
Oh, most of the people working on Linux doesn't care about the benchmarks.
Benchmarks are important in advertising, but Linux doesn't have an
PR-budget. Have you seen Alan Cox or Linux Thorvalds or some other
kernel-programmer about the benchmarks!?? With the THIRD Mindcraft benchmark
the Linux people localized some soft points in the TCP/IP stacks, and fixed
it. The latest 2.2.x kernels are far more effective in TCP/IP then the first
ones, and the last 2.3.x kernels are far better then the 2.2.x kernels in
SMP.
>>My question to you, why do believe MS while those who work with Linux and do
>>know the good and the bad points of it, doesn't agree with it. The income of
>>the Linux users doesn't depend on what is going to happen with their OS.
>You don't get it, do you? You make it sound like some conspiracy theory.
Well, it is an attempt from MS to try to prevent the exodus of developers
away from NT. Some big companies are already porting or planning to port
software to Linux, Compaq closed down their Alpha-Windows lines, Oracle,
Corel, Borland are going to port software from Windows to Linux. Thats the
main problem for MS. There was an time that Unix-based companies are started
to port their software to NT. But now NT has to compete with Linux too, and
not all companies does got the resources to do both of them. And from a Unix
sense porting to Linux is easier than porting to NT.
>Both OS are good, but it all depends on what kind of network you're
>building. If you've ever read any books on Networking you'll realize that
>all the OS have their place in the computing world and not one can "do it
>all". But from the original aspect (which you seem to have lost) or
>security, NT, is MUCH more secure than Linux. Microsoft has PROVEN this,
>and yet all Linux users can do is bitch back that it's not....maybe it's
>just that they're too busy patching holes, or looking for the holes they
>missed.
Well, first you believe MS talking about Linux as it is trash, then you say
that "Both OS are good". Nt is good enough for storing Windows-only software
on it. But in my experiences thats all.
>Wrong!!! There are literally THOUSANDS of companies with financial
>interest in it. Do you think they just give the latest version of Red Hat
>away? Maybe if you're a warez kiddie. There are hundreds of flavors and
>many are owned by companies which sell and make lots of profit. And since
>the Linux boom many more companies have started. As an example check out
>all the hype on Trinux. Not to mention all the companies which specialize
>in Linux installations and such.
There are indeed THOUSANDS of companies working with Linux, but NONE of them
have ANY influence in the decision whats going into the next Linux kernel.
Only Linus is deciding whats going into it. No RedHat, Intel, Caldera,
Compaq, IBM, Oracle, Sun, Suse or any other company with financial interest
is going to decide that. RedHat might be paying some of those
kernel-programmers (Alan Cox is on the paylist of RedHat) but none of them
can decide anything. Intel would love to have the new Merced chip into the
next 2.4 kernel, but their chip is too late. They would probably have to
wait for 2.5/2.6.
And no, there is only ONE Linux, the distributions you are talking about are
just that. Sets of software packages. SuSe might chose to put KDE in the
standard package and RedHat GNOME. But at the end it doesn't matter. If you
want to have the latest, the hottest you simply download the latest kernel,
patch your software you really want to have upgraded and thats it. You don't
like Netscape!?? Well, you can use Lynx. You don't want an GUI, you don't
install it. You don't have an soundcard, don't install the software for it.
Sadly enough, if you are running Windows98 you must install IE, even if you
don't use it.
>>The Linux users who responded to the MS
>>lies doesn't have got any cent at stake. Microsoft on the other hand does
>>have. If Linux does that with Windows what Windows have done with Netscape,
>>stacker, Corel, the Amgia and any other company that went into the way of MS
>>it will mean that Billy Gates (and his company) loose BILLIONS.
>
>Reality check bud, Microsoft is MAKING billions, not losing them. Pay
>attention you may learn something.
I suggest that you read my last line.
>>If Linux is really that big of trash, why did MS-officals mentioned Linux as
>>their biggest threat in the trials.
>
>Gee...I wonder why.....maybe because...I dunno....they were at risk of
>being split up and needed a good excuse to get out of it?! I mean...this
>is kind of a no brainer.
When the trial was running, Linux wasn't an real competitor on the desktop
market. Things have changed since then. With the advance of Staroffice and
the huge increase in GUI in quality and numbers, people are thinking about
running Linux on the desktop.
>>The people that replace NT with Linux
>>are no idiots. They have got an real reason for doing this. Institutions
>>like NASA and the NOAA are using it. Are they all stupid!??
>
>No, they simply have different types of network demands. If you're a
>network engineer and you're going to be setting up a network say at some
>small time corporation and said corporation has like no one who knows
>ANYTHING about computers are you REALLY gonna set up Linux?! I mean...come
>on....as far as ease of use and familiarity NT is the best.
Well, if its only a FILE/PRINT server why not. Hire an Unix expert, let him
install the software and you can keep the machine running for years. You
don't ever have to touch that machine again. Its working.
>The trick here is the XP1000 Alphas....know how much those cost? They make
>Linux do some cool shit but they're a little pricey.
The trick is that they are 64bits. And they probably needed 64bits. NT can't
deliver anything 64bits, so they needed to go for something different. A
supercomputer (made of one machine) was too expensive, an Linux-Alpha
cluster was able to do the same. An cluster consisting of about 277 Windows
NT machines wouldn't work. So it was Linux on the Alpha or paying huge bucks
to get an big fat 50mln supercomputer.
>You know what you should do? You should stop, take a breather, and then
>think. It'll give your brain some time to get some oxygen before you start
>talking again. Oh and do try to stick to the subject...UNIX SECURITY VS
>WINDOWS SECURITY.......
No. you changed the subject when you added those MS-myths.
Bill
I use MS cuz all my junk seems to need it. I like the idea that Linux is
free (don't know squat about it). But, what really has me scratching my
head is this:
Does anyone actually like those ugly green crap holders called Depends?
It really irks me that I can find them anywhere, but Attends are nowhere
to be found!
When I strap on a Depends, I feel like I'm wearing 180 grit sandpaper
soaked in moss. Attends on the other hand feel like an old friend coming
over to hug my crotch. The color is pleasant and I can pretend I'm in
Pampers. Depends on the other hand look like a trash bag.
So, I ask you, K.C. and Depends or P&G and Attends???
I know, HDIS sells Attends mail order, but what fun is that? Half the
excitement of wearing diapers is buying them
i.e.
You head for the diaper isle. You scan for familiar faces. You grab the
big colorful bag that is screaming ADULT DIAPERS. You put it in the cart
and try to hide it under the 6 packs of toilet paper you don't really
need since you're gonna go in yer pants anyway.
You roll it up to register only to find ten people ahead of you, so you
hang around the magazine rack waiting for the traffic to let up.
Finally, you go back to the register. The cashier picks up the bag and
can't find the price thingy. Suddenly, out of nowhere, ten people are
waiting behind you and your big bag of diapers. In desperation, you
point out the price tag to the cashier and hope they don't notice how
red your face is. Someone mumbles something to someone else. You know
it's about you and you know they are staring at your ass.
Then, the ackward moment arrives when they try to find a bag that will
fit over yer big bag of diapers! No such bag exists, you know that cuz
you've been there before. Finally, you tell them you don't need a bag,
knowing full well you already have a trash bag waiting in the car so you
can smuggle em in to the house.
You get home only to find your neighbor in your driveway, wanting to
chat. You blow him off with any excuse, hoping he doesn't see the little
wet spot on your jeans from all the excitement, or the big bag of
diapers in your car that clearly shows through the darkest trash bag.
Bill
Email mailto:byte...@cts.com
ByteMine Adult Baby / Diaper Lovers Pages
All Adult Babies are welcome to visit
http://bytemine.com/forum/ Diaper Lovers Discussion Forum
http://bytemine.com/links/ Diaper Page Links
http://bytemine.com/abpage/ Diaper Lovers Photos and Videos
.....................................................
Kass 1972
listen to anyone. Rat Boy's rat like mind too small...
-K
baby_matthew
>with you. But if you are talking about the professionals IT-ers, no I don't
>agree with it. Those who are working as an journalist don't know anything
>about Linux or Windows, they are only talking what they have learned some
>time ago.
Most professionals don't look at it that way. They look at what kind of
network they're going to be building, who is going to be using it, etc,
etc. From there they decide which OS would be a better choice. But they
don't just look at OS's. They also look at hardware, and how different
kinds of hardware works with different OS's. A lot of times cost plays a
big factor.
>Well, there are as many benchmarks that says that Linux is better than
>Windows NT as visa-versa.
Well where are they?
>The problem is, what does benchmarking means if
>ONE company is using special-made software while the other uses normal out
>of the box software, without some tweaks. There was some talk about the
>Mindcraft debacle (for M$) but MS forget to tell about the German-based
>benchmark.
Benchmarking can be good if a lot of time is spent in testing all kinds of
aspects, and finding what parts of the software work best with what kinds
of hardware. In order to really utilize your OS's potential you need to
look at your hardware. For instance Intel came up with those AGP video
cards, and then a lot of no name companies started making boards
incorporating it as well. But if you ever use a AGP video card in a non
Intel board...well....there's a good chance it'll get fried. The hardware
is just as touchy as the software, and when you combine several different
types of hardware, and several different types of software, problems will
arise. Especially if they're not configured correctly. This is why for
many people Windows (anything) crashes frequently. Something in their
system isn't set up right.
>Oh, most of the people working on Linux doesn't care about the benchmarks.
>Benchmarks are important in advertising, but Linux doesn't have an
>PR-budget. Have you seen Alan Cox or Linux Thorvalds or some other
>kernel-programmer about the benchmarks!?? With the THIRD Mindcraft benchmark
>the Linux people localized some soft points in the TCP/IP stacks, and fixed
>it. The latest 2.2.x kernels are far more effective in TCP/IP then the first
>ones, and the last 2.3.x kernels are far better then the 2.2.x kernels in
>SMP.
That's one of the problems though. Unix flavors where the source code is
available allows ANY programmer of ANY skill to look at the source code and
not only find suspected flaws, but also test them, and find new ways of
exploiting it. If I was to use Unix on a network I would choose a flavor
in which the source code is not available to just anyone. That would make
it much more secure.
>Well, it is an attempt from MS to try to prevent the exodus of developers
>away from NT. Some big companies are already porting or planning to port
>software to Linux, Compaq closed down their Alpha-Windows lines, Oracle,
>Corel, Borland are going to port software from Windows to Linux. Thats the
>main problem for MS. There was an time that Unix-based companies are started
>to port their software to NT. But now NT has to compete with Linux too, and
>not all companies does got the resources to do both of them. And from a Unix
>sense porting to Linux is easier than porting to NT.
As I've said before, gotta love that Windows emulator! Although if I was
setting up a large network for a some big corporation chances are I would
be using combinations of Linux, as well as NT, etc, etc.
>Well, first you believe MS talking about Linux as it is trash, then you say
>that "Both OS are good". Nt is good enough for storing Windows-only software
>on it. But in my experiences thats all.
I didn't believe their talking about Linux as trash, but I believed they
are correct however as far as security is concerned.
>There are indeed THOUSANDS of companies working with Linux, but NONE of them
>have ANY influence in the decision whats going into the next Linux kernel.
>Only Linus is deciding whats going into it. No RedHat, Intel, Caldera,
>Compaq, IBM, Oracle, Sun, Suse or any other company with financial interest
>is going to decide that. RedHat might be paying some of those
>kernel-programmers (Alan Cox is on the paylist of RedHat) but none of them
>can decide anything. Intel would love to have the new Merced chip into the
>next 2.4 kernel, but their chip is too late. They would probably have to
>wait for 2.5/2.6.
Given enough money the companies can get the programmers to do whatever
they want.
>And no, there is only ONE Linux, the distributions you are talking about are
>just that. Sets of software packages. SuSe might chose to put KDE in the
>standard package and RedHat GNOME. But at the end it doesn't matter. If you
>want to have the latest, the hottest you simply download the latest kernel,
>patch your software you really want to have upgraded and thats it.
Not entirely true. There are other companies and other programmers which
make Unix based software. Linux is a flavor of Unix. Just as Trinux is a
flavor of Unix.
>Sadly enough, if you are running Windows98 you must install IE, even if you
>don't use it.
It's quite easy to take it out. I would be willing to bet you that in the
time it takes for a new Linux user to figure out how to set the thing up, a
user of the same level could figure out how to delete out IE, and take it
out of the registry.
>I suggest that you read my last line.
I did, but you know what? They're still making billions, and they still
will. Wanna know why? How much of the population are familiar with Linux,
how many are familiar with Windows? How many will buy Linux, get
frustrated cause they can't understand it, and then get Windows? What
kinds of things will the next generations of Windows have? Windows
programmers are paid millions and there's a lot of em, and I know they're
faster than the Linux guy.
>When the trial was running, Linux wasn't an real competitor on the desktop
>market. Things have changed since then. With the advance of Staroffice and
>the huge increase in GUI in quality and numbers, people are thinking about
>running Linux on the desktop.
Yup. Lots of people are thinkin. But of all the people I've talked to,
who tried using Linux have hated it, and went back to Windows. (these are
non computer educated users). Linux was NOT meant to have a GUI, and I
think trying to put one on and getting the world to like it is completely
retarded. The more kinds of software, and the more different they are, the
more complicated things get. Do you really think people want to hassel
over finding buying a computer game and having to figure out what kind of
OS it'll work on, only to find it does'nt support theirs. It's kinda like
VHS and BETA. BETA has MUCH better quality than VHS, and yet we use VHS.
Why? Because at some point everybody woke up and realized, "Hey! We need
to set some kind of industry standard!" This is also the same with Mac and
IBM compat.
>Well, if its only a FILE/PRINT server why not. Hire an Unix expert, let him
>install the software and you can keep the machine running for years. You
>don't ever have to touch that machine again. Its working.
You'd still prolly want to have NT, Linux, as well as a few others. Makes
it a little harder to set up, but then it is capable of so much more.
>The trick is that they are 64bits. And they probably needed 64bits. NT can't
>deliver anything 64bits, so they needed to go for something different. A
>supercomputer (made of one machine) was too expensive, an Linux-Alpha
>cluster was able to do the same. An cluster consisting of about 277 Windows
>NT machines wouldn't work. So it was Linux on the Alpha or paying huge bucks
>to get an big fat 50mln supercomputer.
It's the old cost factor again. If I had the money I'd go for a 50mln
supercomputer.
-Baby Matthew
Sjaak Zomer
>>that Open Source is evil, why do you think that 55% of all ISP servers are
>>running Apache, and Open Source webserver!??
>
>Jesus, you're just as bad as your "sources"! WHERE did you get that
>number?! I mean...can you cite the source for that number?! Or did you
>just do what most people do in arguments and pull some shit outta yer ass
>cause it sounds kinda good.
www.netcraft.com
Also most of the biggest internet-related sites are using Unix. You can read
it all at http://news.tucows.com/ext2/99/10/articles/ext210081999.shtml
The old situation was that Unix was for the big boys. Nt was, due to the
cheaper hardware, for the little boys. Nowedays you see Linux, *BSD coming
after the small-hardware market. If an intel-based hardware solution doesn't
cut it anymore and you are using NT, you must upgrade to Unix, but that
means that you can start re-educating your people. If you are running Linux
otoh and you see that the your HARDWARE doesn't cut it anymore, you can
switch to one of the other Unices. No retraining.
Oh yes, about the benchmark I mentioned before:
http://www.it-director.com/./99-07-07-1.html or
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/7181.html
Its already quite old, so the speed of Linux will ofcourse be advanced. Some
of the proof HOW MS lies is told here.
http://www.kegel.com/mindcraft_redux.html
Its all about the changes made into the kernel after the Mindcraft test. How
much speed increase do you see after the Service Packs of MS!?? Well, after
each test, problems are fixed and speed and reliability are improved. Each
time MS finds something to make Linux look week, kernel programmers from all
over the world look into the source and fix the problems. Everything MS
tries to discredit Linux they are actually helping it. Thats the power of
Open Source.
Adult Baby JamieBoy
I hate to admit it (cause it sounds like you are really down on
Depends...) but I still like to wear Depends Overnights - an although I
am not crazy about the color, it doesn't seem to have the negative
aspect that some people attribute to them (meaning the color doesn't
bother me at all...) I have always worn plastic pants with whatever
diaper I wear, so they are usually covered anyway. Lately (in the past
6-8 months) I wear terry lined plastic pants and they are very white
and babyish (though some call them training pants...) and soft and they
completely hide the color of Depends. As for softness, I have tried
Attends several times in the past and my most recent attempt didn't fly
too well. I bought a pack of Attneds large "panales" when I was working
in Ramona one day and I couldn't wait to get them home and try them. (I
bought the large thinking I would be able to add more stuffing and be a
bigger baby with them - I usually take medium Depends). Anyway, and I
have said this before several times on this and bbif and other places -
the Attends that I bought were MISERABLE. I couldn't believe I had
bought them and would have to throw them away!
Now I know many babies will come down on my for my Depend choice, but
they have always "felt" right to me and these Attends felt ridiculous
on me, even stuffed! I really did give them away (I paid to put them in
the mail to someone from the IRC that said they wanted them - cost as
much to send as they did to buy - never do that again...)
Anyway, the other thing that doesn't work for me is the perfumed smell.
To me it is a dead giveaway to my wife that I have wet my pants in bed
- for some reason, this is sort of disconcerting and I became very self
conscious about that. Last thing was that they seemed to have a
tendency (the last pack of mediums I used several years ago....) to
"clump" up and become lumpy with lots of movement, but I would have
hoped that they have solved that problem by now. Depends and Goodnites
"gel up" pretty quick and sort of stay in place inside the pant.
Now, truthfully, I don't buy or wear that many night time diapers
anymore (since I wear Goodnites with terry lined plastic pants all day
at work, my night time wearing has sort of subsided a bit...) and I
would like to have some Molicares some day soon. I would like to try a
medium Attend to see if they really are superior to what I have been
experiencing with Depends, but as you say, they are very rare on the
shelves in San Diego County and my last attempt left me brusied...
Anyway, just thought I would fill you in on the opposite side of the
coin in this ever ongoing diaper debate.
Your friend in diapers and another San Diego long time diaper lover and
wearer,
JamieBoy
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Bill
I'd send you a medium Attends, but I'm down to a dozen and can't find
anymore. They just became my special occasion diaper. When they are all
gone, I'm going to just cloth. I like the way Attends feel stuffed and
think the Depends feel empty. I do have 2 bags of the original Attends
with the plastic inner lining. They really suck. No gel, just paper
filler.
Normally, I wear Attends with a Babykins Cotton Pull on over them and
plastic pants on the outside. I like my diapers thick!. Actually,
Attends alone are garbage for night time use. If, in your travels, you
find medium Attends, let me know where.
Since you live in the area, I'll ask you. I used to get clear plastic
pants at a med supply store in Santee, but the closed up. Have you seen
any other local shops with them?
Attends do have a perfume smell that I could do without. I'd rather they
stank like pee by morning :-). My wife pretty much assumes I'll be wet
anyway. She would rather smell the perfume and quit complaining when I
started wearing Attends.
I tried Molicares once. They are one ugly diaper but they sure hold the
pee! Even so, I can't see paying the price for them. As I recall, they
were double what I was getting Attends for.
Have you tried the Assurance Pull ons yet? I saw them at Walmart and
might try some.
Your friend too
Bill
--
....................................................
Big Daddy
> Bill,
> Now I know many babies will come down on my for my Depend choice, but
> they have always "felt" right to me and these Attends felt ridiculous
> on me, even stuffed! I really did give them away (I paid to put them in
> the mail to someone from the IRC that said they wanted them - cost as
> much to send as they did to buy - never do that again...)
Different people's bodies are all slightly different in that area. Depends
and Attends are each 'cut' just a bit different. (As are all of the rest of
the diapers on the market.) For one person, a Depends is going to give them
a better fit than an Attends. For the next person, just the opposite is
true.
And, for diapers the quality of fit is going to play a big role in the
ability to control leaks.
This 'small', 'medium', and 'large' isn't working well, either. You wouldn't
buy a pair of undershorts that would fit a waist 33" to 41". They would be
ridiculous and would feel terrible. Diaper manufacturers need to introduce 2
or 3 more sizes in there!
> Now, truthfully, I don't buy or wear that many night time diapers
> anymore (since I wear Goodnites with terry lined plastic pants all day
> at work, my night time wearing has sort of subsided a bit...) and I
> would like to have some Molicares some day soon. I would like to try a
> medium Attend to see if they really are superior to what I have been
> experiencing with Depends, but as you say, they are very rare on the
> shelves in San Diego County and my last attempt left me brusied...
Both Attends and Depends are readily available at most/all Wal-Marts, as
well as some decent 'generic' diapers.
Molicares are hard to find. They have a cut that is significantly different
than any other diaper on the market. Many have told me that Molicares do not
give them the fit of some others. Molicares will hold a LOT more than any
other diaper on the market. The downside is that before they are
completely full, they are so heavy that you can't keep them up.
HDIS has Molicares by the case. I am selling them individually for $2.00
plus shipping in any quantity. Medline also has them by the case. I don't
know of any other places that are selling Molicares.
Big Daddy
Adult Baby JamieBoy
>Hi Jamie,
>I'd send you a medium Attends, but I'm down to a dozen and can't find
>anymore. They just became my special occasion diaper.
I know how hard it is to give away something you love so much. My wife
is always egging me into throwing away a pair of plastic pants if they
have a small tear or something - I get out the sewing machine and try
to repair them, if possible (it is out right now a couple feet away
from me to fix a pair of terry lined pants that are finally starting to
tear up the side after 9 months or so...)
>When they are all gone, I'm going to just cloth.
I would use cloth more often, but for some reason they tend to give me
a rash. I wear a wet Goodnite all day long every workday of the week
and never even get a hint of a rash. Go figure.
>I like the way Attends feel stuffed and think the Depends feel empty.
I guess that is the feeling that most of us are looking for, no matter
the diaper. We just want to feel like a baby that has filled his diaper
and needs attention. The Depends Overnights make me feel that
way,epsecially when I use a Goodnite as a stuffer and flood it out!!
>I do have 2 bags of the original Attends with the plastic inner
lining. >They really suck. No gel, just paper filler.
Since my last experience with the Attends I have always wondered if I
got a batch of them that had sat on a shelf for a couple of years and
were the old style or something. They didn't have much information on
the package at all, as a matter of fact they did call them "panales" on
the package, so I could have even got a Mexican export version that
somehow landed in Ramona.
>Normally, I wear Attends with a Babykins Cotton Pull on over them and
>plastic pants on the outside. I like my diapers thick!. Actually,
>Attends alone are garbage for night time use.
I have wanted to get the Babykins Cotton Pull On for some time now,
they are so cute on the Kins model!
>If, in your travels, you find medium Attends, let me know where.
I'll keep my eyes peeled....
>Since you live in the area, I'll ask you. I used to get clear plastic
>pants at a med supply store in Santee, but the closed up. Have you
seen >any other local shops with them?
No, I rarely get into the med supply stores anymore. Since I found AC
Med, I have been using them exclusively (since my wife seems to like
how they look on me...) There used to be a med supply store in Casa De
Oro that had my very favorite plastic pants (can't remember the
brand...) on the shelf, but I couldn't bring myself to go and buy any
more (I had bought one or two...) and I longed for them so bad!!! I
was CRUSHED when they went out of business!! I definately learned to
"not put off until tomorrow what you can sucessfully complete today"...
>Have you tried the Assurance Pull ons yet? I saw them at Walmart and
>might try some.
And, no, I haven't tried Assurance. As far as pull ons, the Goodnites
XL's fit me well enough that I will probably use only them or Depends
Protective Pants. Both fit me great and the Goodnites just seem to hold
more if you are dribble little bits all day long. I get more coupons
for the Depends products that the Goodnites, but I find it easier to
buy the Goodnites than the Depends Protective Pants since I can always
sort of act as if they aren't mine. When I buy the Depends products I
just act as if I don't care or it isn't anyone's business.
Again, your friend in diapers,
JamieBoy
San Diego
Rob
I need someone to go buy diapers with me, i have before but it is much more
fun when someone goes with you, in my opinion
Rob
Bill <byte...@cts.com> wrote in message news:3801B707...@cts.com...
David
tried alot of things, but i still think attends are the best when it comes
to mass market brands. attends i find to be fairly comfortble. i don't sweat
like crazy and itch and get as many rashes as i do with depends and some fo
the others. hmm, and as far as the larges, thier pretty kewl, heh you get
some of that muesmans water gel, at least i think thats the sompanies name,
fairly sure, thier the ones that make the gel that goes in baby diapers,
throw 2 or 3 tablespoons of it in a large attend and see what happens
Devin
Anonymous
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
baby_matthew
just keep on tryin. You'll spend your entire life hating me and one day
you'll realize that you've wasted most of your entire life hating me. You
see Franko, you'll be dead within a hundred years, everyone you know will
be dead, everyone on this entire planet will be gone in about that length
of time, so do you REALLY think it's worth it? I mean there a 6 billion
other people on the planet who are NOT me. So why don't you shut the hell
up and go make a friend, it'll be a lot more constructive than what you're
currently doing.
-Baby Matthew
franko_is_at_it_again...
PanSavant
DOS Air:
Passengers walk out onto the runway, grab hold of the plane and push it
until it gets in the air, hop on, then jump off when it hits the ground.
They grab the plane again, push it back into the air, hop on, jump off....
MacAirways:
The cashiers, flight attendants, and piolts all look the same, talk the
same, and act the same. When you ask them questions about the flight, they
reply that you don't want to know, don't need to know, and would you please
return to your seat and watch the movie.
Windows Airlines:
The terminal is neat and clean, the attendants courteousm, the piolts
capable. The fleet of Lear jets the carrier operates is immense. Your
plane takes off without a hitch, pushes above the clouds, and at 20,000 feet
explodes without warning.
Fly Windows NT:
Passengers carry their seats out to the tarmac and place them in an outline
of a plane. They sit down, flap their arms, and make jet swoshing sounds as
if they are flying.
UNIX Express:
Passengers bring a piece of the airplane and a box of tools with them to the
airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing about what kind of plane they
want to build. The passengers split into groups and build several different
aircraft but give them all the same name. Only some of the passengers reach
their destination, but all of them believe they arrived.
----------------------------------------------------------
Now that that is done... can we get back to diapers?
PanSavant
(During a tech support session....
"Now right click on the desktop, you should see a menu" (pause)
"Do you see the menu?"
"Ummm... no."
"Ok tell me what you did..."
"I wrote 'click' on my desktop. I did something dumb right?"
<Sound of the phone clicking off>)
PanSavant
almost twice as much as any mass market brand, however their distribution is
limited to select markets. You can however get a free sample from them. Go
to their web site and fill in the information. (http://www.gopeach.com)
You will not be disappointed.
Of course though I still have to try Mollicare, but till I do, I am still a
peach baby.
PanSavant
"In the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is king..."
Adult Baby JamieBoy
>Actually I really really love the Tranquillity brand of diapers. They
>hold almost twice as much as any mass market brand, however their
>distribution is limited to select markets. You can however get a free
>sample from them. Go to their web site and fill in the information.
> (http://www.gopeach.com)
>You will not be disappointed. Of course though I still have to try
>Mollicare, but till I do, I am still a peach baby.
Just wanted to let you know that if you enclose a url in quotes or
paranthesis, the link won't work automatically....
JamieBoy
David
> paranthesis, the link won't work automatically....
>
> Try: http://www.gopeach.com
>
>
>
> JamieBoy
>