Please list some benchmarks showing Linux in a good light
Drestin Black
benchmarks where Linux performs well.
I'm trying to do a balanced table and can't find more than two such
examples.
NOT a troll or flame bait, I'm trying to be fair.
Thanks,
db
Nate
Is that something like "post a taste-test done by people who like
liver"?
Drestin Black
sense. (the silence is deafening)
Nate <nhu...@scenedesign.com> wrote in message
news:42E1F2F689E77607.1CCF1E0A...@lp.airnews.net...
Peter Ammon
>
> Um, no. What a silly thing to write. Please, limit posts to those that make
> sense. (the silence is deafening)
>
His point was that you shouldn't go looking for numbers to show what you
want to prove, even if your goal is to be balanced. Perhaps a better
question would have been "Can anyone point me towards some benchmarks
comparing Linux to other OSes?"
-Peter
Drestin Black
light. I did not state what I was trying to prove. I simply would like to
make a list of benchmarks.
However, ok:
Can anyone point me towards some benchmarks comparing Linux to other OSes?
Thank you,
db
Peter Ammon <pa...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:37EA8CED...@cornell.edu...
Johnny Lee
www.pcweek.com and search for NT vs. Linux or just NT Linux and you'll
probably get it. Truthfully though, it did not put Linux in a good light.
Drestin Black <worki...@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:rul79b...@corp.supernews.com...
Brent Davies
Johnny Lee <johnl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ghzG3.738$B51.11332@ha1...
> PCWeek did a NT vs. Linux showdown (twice) some time back. Go to
> www.pcweek.com and search for NT vs. Linux or just NT Linux and you'll
> probably get it. Truthfully though, it did not put Linux in a good light.
>
That's probably because PCWeek tends to look at things from the point of
view of the consumer. Linux is gaining ground in consumer usability. But
it seems that even with all of the problems that Windows has (crashes, poor
memory management, etc.), the consumers seem to more comfortable with it
than Linux. It may be because they are so afraid of computers that they
would rather deal with a problematic, but easy, OS rather than a difficult
but allegedly more stable OS.
I think Linux will be a contender on the consumer computer, but I don't
think technical capability alone will get it there (companies like Digital
Equipment Corporation have proven that engineering excellence is not enough,
in and of itself, to be successful). Even when Linux is as easy to install
and configure as Windows (probably beginning with the Corel distro) it will
take some time for consumers to warm up to it. That will take some work on
the part of the marketing departments maintained by the distribution
companies (RedHat, Caldera, Corel, etc.)
My $0.02
[snip]
-B
void
wrote:
>
>That's probably because PCWeek tends to look at things from the point of
>view of the consumer.
Bre*t's got it. Also, who advertises in PCWeek? Which side is their
bread buttered on? I'm not accusing them of anything, I'm just
curious.
--
Ben
[X] YES! I'm a brain-damaged lemur on crack, and I'd like to
order your software package for $459.95!
Stuart Fox
void wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:18:57 GMT, Brent Davies <brentdav...@home.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>That's probably because PCWeek tends to look at things from the point of
>>view of the consumer.
>
>Bre*t's got it. Also, who advertises in PCWeek? Which side is their
>bread buttered on? I'm not accusing them of anything, I'm just
>curious.
>
ZDnet. Many articles about Windows NT can't go for a few lines without
mysteriously adding in something about Linux.
Stu
Brent Davies
void <fl...@interport.net> wrote in message
news:slrn7ulj39...@interport.net...
[snip]
>
> Bre*t's
That's a pretty slick way around it! =}
LOL!
-B
Ruel Smith
Ruel Smith
___________
Drestin Black <worki...@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:rukn53...@corp.supernews.com...
> Can anyone please post me some URLs (1998 or newer please) pointing to
> benchmarks where Linux performs well.
>
> I'm trying to do a balanced table and can't find more than two such
> examples.
>
> NOT a troll or flame bait, I'm trying to be fair.
>
> Thanks,
> db
>
>
>
Ruel Smith
First, hardware support is a generation behind.
Second, the "free" thing leaves little incentive for anyone to push the
envelope. The "latest - greatest" thing in the Windows world is because
people make money coming up with the stuff. The gadgetry thing is what
people who use computers at home are so hyped up about. They want the latest
games, the latest hardware, the cool snazzy apps, etc..
Thirdly, Linux has a long way to go to become "user-friendly" and unless
someone does a major overhaul of the GNU based tools it uses, it will never
see ease-of-use on par with Windows let alone a Mac.
Linux will probably never be a major home OS player because of these 3
reasons. However, it has an excellent future in the embedded, set-top,
verticle, and enterprise markets because of it's capabilities as an OS and
it's "free" pricing structure.
Ruel Smith
__________
Brent Davies <brentdav...@home.com> wrote in message
news:RrzG3.1936$Iv5....@news.rdc2.occa.home.com...
>
> Johnny Lee <johnl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ghzG3.738$B51.11332@ha1...
> > PCWeek did a NT vs. Linux showdown (twice) some time back. Go to
> > www.pcweek.com and search for NT vs. Linux or just NT Linux and you'll
> > probably get it. Truthfully though, it did not put Linux in a good
light.
> >
>
> That's probably because PCWeek tends to look at things from the point of
EdWIN
<42E1F2F689E77607.1CCF1E0A...@lp.airnews.net>:
>On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:00:04 -0400, "Drestin Black"
><worki...@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam> wrote:
>
>>Can anyone please post me some URLs (1998 or newer please) pointing to
>>benchmarks where Linux performs well.
>>
>>I'm trying to do a balanced table and can't find more than two such
>>examples.
>>
>>NOT a troll or flame bait, I'm trying to be fair.
>
>
>Is that something like "post a taste-test done by people who like
>liver"?
>
mmmmm.....liver.
--
"Let all who oppose the OverMind feel the Fury of the Swarm!"
-- Infested Kerrigan, aka The Queen of Blades, StarCraft.
void
>Linux has 3 major shorcomings:
>
>First, hardware support is a generation behind.
It's about ten minutes behind. And this is a function of market share,
not an inherent limitation of the technology.
>Second, the "free" thing leaves little incentive for anyone to push the
>envelope. The "latest - greatest" thing in the Windows world is because
>people make money coming up with the stuff. The gadgetry thing is what
>people who use computers at home are so hyped up about. They want the latest
>games, the latest hardware, the cool snazzy apps, etc..
Oh puh-leeze. Are you a troll?
>Thirdly, Linux has a long way to go to become "user-friendly" and unless
>someone does a major overhaul of the GNU based tools it uses, it will never
>see ease-of-use on par with Windows let alone a Mac.
Learn a little about layering and alternate interfaces. The GNU tools
don't need to be overhauled, they need to be supplemented with a
graphical, user-friendly interface and an object layer to support it.
Craig Kelley
> Linux has 3 major shorcomings:
>
> First, hardware support is a generation behind.
>
> Second, the "free" thing leaves little incentive for anyone to push the
> envelope. The "latest - greatest" thing in the Windows world is because
> people make money coming up with the stuff. The gadgetry thing is what
> people who use computers at home are so hyped up about. They want the latest
> games, the latest hardware, the cool snazzy apps, etc..
>
> Thirdly, Linux has a long way to go to become "user-friendly" and unless
> someone does a major overhaul of the GNU based tools it uses, it will never
> see ease-of-use on par with Windows let alone a Mac.
>
> Linux will probably never be a major home OS player because of these 3
> reasons. However, it has an excellent future in the embedded, set-top,
> verticle, and enterprise markets because of it's capabilities as an OS and
> it's "free" pricing structure.
All the above were true for Microsoft DOS in the early 90's.
Look what it turned into.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Ruel Smith
(void) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:36:40 -0400, Ruel Smith <rue...@fuse.net> wrote:
>>Linux has 3 major shorcomings:
>>
>>First, hardware support is a generation behind.
>
> It's about ten minutes behind. And this is a function of market share,
> not an inherent limitation of the technology.
>
Hmmm...SoundBlaster Live has been out for quite awhile...Linux
support...NONE...nVidia TNT 2 has been out for a few months...Linux
support...NONE! Ten minutes? Yeah...right!
>>Second, the "free" thing leaves little incentive for anyone to push the
>>envelope. The "latest - greatest" thing in the Windows world is because
>>people make money coming up with the stuff. The gadgetry thing is what
>>people who use computers at home are so hyped up about. They want the latest
>>games, the latest hardware, the cool snazzy apps, etc..
>
> Oh puh-leeze. Are you a troll?
>
Are you? Fact is, programming this stuff isn't easy, and without profit,
there's no incentive. The free software model has more than a few holes
in it. Yeah there are folks out there developing open-source free
software, and some damn good stuff too (i.e. Apache), but for the
majority of things, you won't find people to develop it for free. I'm
still learning to program (working on that MFC thing...) and I wouldn't
waste my free time writing code to give away if it was anything of any
substance and complexity. Yes, I intend to write some shareware, but the
problem is the constant renewal of new drivers and apps that need to be
developed - free... I just can't see it taking off for these reasons. I
think even the Linux community is aware of this.
>>Thirdly, Linux has a long way to go to become "user-friendly" and unless
>>someone does a major overhaul of the GNU based tools it uses, it will never
>>see ease-of-use on par with Windows let alone a Mac.
>
> Learn a little about layering and alternate interfaces. The GNU tools
> don't need to be overhauled, they need to be supplemented with a
> graphical, user-friendly interface and an object layer to support it.
>
I guess GNOME isn't a GNU software then? Hmmm... Linux GUI's lack the
functionality that even crappy Windows gives you. Linux and the GNU
software that makes up 70% of the Linux OS was written with power users
in mind. They wanted to give the user/administrator total control from
the onset. This comes at the expense of user-friendliness.
--
Ruel Smith
Cincinnati, OH
MFC = Mostly Frustrating Code...
----------
tekn...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>In article <slrn7uncu9...@interport.net>, fl...@interport.net
>(void) wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:36:40 -0400, Ruel Smith <rue...@fuse.net> wrote:
>>>Linux has 3 major shorcomings:
>>>
>>>First, hardware support is a generation behind.
>>
>> It's about ten minutes behind. And this is a function of market share,
>> not an inherent limitation of the technology.
>>
>
>Hmmm...SoundBlaster Live has been out for quite awhile...Linux
>support...NONE...
Actually there are beta drivers for Linux on the SBLive website. They
are not full featured, but they do work and will get you going.
teknite
Jason S.
>I guess GNOME isn't a GNU software then? Hmmm... Linux GUI's lack the
>functionality that even crappy Windows gives you. Linux and the GNU
>software that makes up 70% of the Linux OS was written with power users
>in mind. They wanted to give the user/administrator total control from
>the onset. This comes at the expense of user-friendliness.
Maybe I'm strange, but I think that the GNOME interface that ships with
RedHat 6.0 is a *lot* nicer than Windows 98. (Sheesh -- Windows *still*
doesn't understand the concept of a window manager than runs independently
of the programs that it is managing -- talk about annoying!)
--
Check out the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/csmafaq/
muahahahahahahaha!!!snap!snap!!snap!!photoshop!!
-- Ho You Kong
Chad Mulligan
<trimmed>
>So, people will buy games and high-end apps. Also consider the
complexity of some
>of the following
>X
Old stuff and the NT versions (Exceed for example) are more refined.
>Sendmail
Avail in all it's geekiness for NT.
As is
>BIND
>Linux kernel
Still playing catchup with scalability, threading etc.
>KDE
Getting better, version 2 ought to be really good. Though it still
isn't a WPS.
>GIMP
Compared to what. Photoshop not. Paintbrush maybe.
>
>These are free/Free and rival if not surpase their windoze
counterparts.
>
>> --
>>
>> Ruel Smith
>> Cincinnati, OH
>>
>> MFC = Mostly Frustrating Code...
>>
>> ----------
>
>Mark Robinson
>
Jim Richardson
brought forth the following words...:
>Linux has 3 major shorcomings:
>
>First, hardware support is a generation behind.
Maybe a half gen for some, like video cards and game controllers.
>
>Second, the "free" thing leaves little incentive for anyone to push the
>envelope. The "latest - greatest" thing in the Windows world is because
>people make money coming up with the stuff. The gadgetry thing is what
>people who use computers at home are so hyped up about. They want the latest
>games, the latest hardware, the cool snazzy apps, etc..
I suppose I could say, that windows coders do it for money,
whilst open source coders do it for the love of it.
What s/w do you want to run, the piece written by the guy who
only wrotr it 'cause he was paid? or the one by the guys who
wrote it because it scratched an itch for them.
Maybe you are going to tell me that noone makes money from GCC,
apache, TCLTK, perl, sendmail... Or maybe you are going to say
that there are no closed source apps for linux? like DB2, oracle,
etc...
>Thirdly, Linux has a long way to go to become "user-friendly" and unless
>someone does a major overhaul of the GNU based tools it uses, it will never
>see ease-of-use on par with Windows let alone a Mac.
Used linux lately? thought not.
>Linux will probably never be a major home OS player because of these 3
>reasons. However, it has an excellent future in the embedded, set-top,
>verticle, and enterprise markets because of it's capabilities as an OS and
>it's "free" pricing structure.
>
Gratis is good, libre is better.
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
John Jensen
: Hmmm...SoundBlaster Live has been out for quite awhile...Linux
: support...NONE [...]
: Are you? Fact is, programming this stuff isn't easy, and without profit,
: there's no incentive. The free software model has more than a few holes
: in it. [...]
: I guess GNOME isn't a GNU software then? Hmmm... Linux GUI's lack the
: functionality that [...]
I give this one a 8 out of 10. Three points were awarded for an effective
and forcefull repetition of half-truths. Four points for the implication
of a steady-state for Linux software, and the careful redirection away
from any progress that might have been made this year(*).
John
* - If I were trying to show progress I might quote something like this:
"Linux could vault into the datacentre with 1024-node high availability
clusters within two years if an ambitious clustering architecture, now
being drafted, gains industry and community support."
"The project's team -- including Larry McVoy, president of BitMover, and
the former Sun Microsystems and SGI engineer who led Sun's first
clustering initiative, Stephen Tweedie, who heads Linux file system
development, and Peter Braam of Stelia Computing and leader of Carnegie
Mellon University's Coda distributed file system-- first met in secret in
August to devise a clustering architecture that satisfies both commercial
data processing and HPC (high performance computing) requirements."
Who would have thought a year ago that heavy-hitters like these would be
doing Linux projects?
John Jensen
: Ruel Smith <rue...@fuse.net> wrote:
: : Hmmm...SoundBlaster Live has been out for quite awhile...Linux
: : support...NONE [...]
: : Are you? Fact is, programming this stuff isn't easy, and without profit,
: : there's no incentive. The free software model has more than a few holes
: : in it. [...]
: : I guess GNOME isn't a GNU software then? Hmmm... Linux GUI's lack the
: : functionality that [...]
: I give this one a 8 out of 10. Three points were awarded for an effective
: and forcefull repetition of half-truths. Four points for the implication
: of a steady-state for Linux software, and the careful redirection away
: from any progress that might have been made this year(*).
Safety Hint - Proofread your article _before_ posting.
John
Drestin Black
Did you note on that page:
Our results were the opposite of what we'd expected to see, given PC Week's
test results.
<snip>
Also, we initially thought that the server's 128MB of memory wasn't enough
to cache the workload in addition to maintaining room for the operating
system itself; **but we saw that when we tuned IIS through a couple of
published registry tweaks to use its memory cache better, WebBench results
improved dramatically. **
Why don't they show the results of the typically tweaked IIS configuration?
Ruel Smith <rue...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:run09v...@corp.supernews.com...
> Try: http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2327827,00.html
>
> Ruel Smith
> ___________
>
> Drestin Black <worki...@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam> wrote in message
> news:rukn53...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Can anyone please post me some URLs (1998 or newer please) pointing to
> > benchmarks where Linux performs well.
> >
> > I'm trying to do a balanced table and can't find more than two such
> > examples.
> >
> > NOT a troll or flame bait, I'm trying to be fair.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > db
> >
> >
> >
>
>
void
>In article <slrn7uncu9...@interport.net>, fl...@interport.net
>
>Hmmm...SoundBlaster Live has been out for quite awhile...Linux
>support...NONE! Ten minutes? Yeah...right!
*shrug*
Even if your facts were correct, I don't think it's such a big deal.
Plenty of companies will sell you really good hardware put together with
Linux or FreeBSD in mind.
>>>Second, the "free" thing leaves little incentive for anyone to push the
>>>envelope. The "latest - greatest" thing in the Windows world is because
>>>people make money coming up with the stuff. The gadgetry thing is what
>>>people who use computers at home are so hyped up about. They want the latest
>>>games, the latest hardware, the cool snazzy apps, etc..
>>
>> Oh puh-leeze. Are you a troll?
>>
>
>Are you?
Yes, I am. Ask anyone here.
>Fact is, programming this stuff isn't easy,
Really!
>and without profit, there's no incentive.
Then where did all this software I'm using come from? I'm puzzled.
>The free software model has more than a few holes in it.
The free software *library* has holes in it, you mean. Not the same
thing. The free software *model* is still developing, I think it's a
bit too soon to start making pronouncements like that.
>Yeah there are folks out there developing open-source free
>software, and some damn good stuff too (i.e. Apache), but for the
>majority of things, you won't find people to develop it for free.
There are application domains for which no open source solution exists
yet. But the only proof you have that they'll never be filled is the
cheapest kind: proof by assertion.
>I'm
>still learning to program (working on that MFC thing...) and I wouldn't
>waste my free time writing code to give away if it was anything of any
>substance and complexity.
Ah yes, the old "I-am-a-microcosm-of-the-world" theory of anti-OSS
advocacy. News flash: you aren't.
>Yes, I intend to write some shareware, but the
>problem is the constant renewal of new drivers and apps that need to be
>developed - free... I just can't see it taking off for these reasons. I
>think even the Linux community is aware of this.
Yeah, that's what the guys at freshmeat.net were telling me just the
other day.
New drivers are often necessary, and have you noticed how more and more
vendors are supplying Linux drivers with their products? Not that many
yet, but more than there were a year ago.
I don't know about this "constant renewal of new apps" that you mention.
I think you made it up. If you've got a good word processor, what do
you need a new one for? Remember that OSS doesn't go away just because
a vendor goes under. Once the code is out there, it's out there, for
anyone to pick up and modify and redistribute as they wish.
>>>Thirdly, Linux has a long way to go to become "user-friendly" and unless
>>>someone does a major overhaul of the GNU based tools it uses, it will never
>>>see ease-of-use on par with Windows let alone a Mac.
>>
>> Learn a little about layering and alternate interfaces. The GNU tools
>> don't need to be overhauled, they need to be supplemented with a
>> graphical, user-friendly interface and an object layer to support it.
>
>I guess GNOME isn't a GNU software then? Hmmm... Linux GUI's lack the
>functionality that even crappy Windows gives you. Linux and the GNU
>software that makes up 70% of the Linux OS was written with power users
>in mind. They wanted to give the user/administrator total control from
>the onset. This comes at the expense of user-friendliness.
When you say that 70% of Linux is GNU, you're obviously not talking
about GNOME. Also, I don't see how you can reasonably claim that GNOME
needs an overhaul when it isn't even finished yet.
Control vs. user-friendliness is a false tradeoff. That's why I said
you should learn about layering and alternate interfaces. A simple
example of this is HTML authoring tools. You can create HTML through
the tool's interface and/or edit it directly. The ability to edit the
code in a text editor does not detract at all from the ability to
manipulate it through a GUI without really knowing what you're doing.
Have you ever heard of MacOS X? It's pretty ignorant to claim that unix
can never be as user-friendly as MacOS when Apple is implementing MacOS
on unix. They're not doing it by making "tar" and "grep" user-friendly,
either.
Mark Robinson
Ruel Smith wrote:
> In article <slrn7uncu9...@interport.net>, fl...@interport.net
> (void) wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:36:40 -0400, Ruel Smith <rue...@fuse.net> wrote:
> >>Linux has 3 major shorcomings:
> >>
> >>First, hardware support is a generation behind.
> >
> > It's about ten minutes behind. And this is a function of market share,
> > not an inherent limitation of the technology.
> >
>
> Hmmm...SoundBlaster Live has been out for quite awhile...Linux
Bzzzztt. Wrong try again
>
> support...NONE...nVidia TNT 2 has been out for a few months...Linux
See SoundBlaster Live. In fact Nvidia has released lots of source for their cards
too.
>
> support...NONE! Ten minutes? Yeah...right!
yeah, 5 minutes.
>
>
> >>Second, the "free" thing leaves little incentive for anyone to push the
> >>envelope. The "latest - greatest" thing in the Windows world is because
> >>people make money coming up with the stuff. The gadgetry thing is what
> >>people who use computers at home are so hyped up about. They want the latest
> >>games, the latest hardware, the cool snazzy apps, etc..
> >
> > Oh puh-leeze. Are you a troll?
> >
>
> Are you? Fact is, programming this stuff isn't easy, and without profit,
> there's no incentive. The free software model has more than a few holes
> in it. Yeah there are folks out there developing open-source free
> software, and some damn good stuff too (i.e. Apache), but for the
> majority of things, you won't find people to develop it for free. I'm
> still learning to program (working on that MFC thing...) and I wouldn't
> waste my free time writing code to give away if it was anything of any
> substance and complexity. Yes, I intend to write some shareware, but the
> problem is the constant renewal of new drivers and apps that need to be
> developed - free... I just can't see it taking off for these reasons. I
> think even the Linux community is aware of this.
So, people will buy games and high-end apps. Also consider the complexity of some
of the following
X
Sendmail
BIND
Linux kernel
KDE
GIMP
These are free/Free and rival if not surpase their windoze counterparts.
>
>
> >>Thirdly, Linux has a long way to go to become "user-friendly" and unless
> >>someone does a major overhaul of the GNU based tools it uses, it will never
> >>see ease-of-use on par with Windows let alone a Mac.
> >
> > Learn a little about layering and alternate interfaces. The GNU tools
> > don't need to be overhauled, they need to be supplemented with a
> > graphical, user-friendly interface and an object layer to support it.
> >
>
> I guess GNOME isn't a GNU software then? Hmmm... Linux GUI's lack the
> functionality that even crappy Windows gives you. Linux and the GNU
> software that makes up 70% of the Linux OS was written with power users
> in mind. They wanted to give the user/administrator total control from
> the onset. This comes at the expense of user-friendliness.'
"a GNU software" What?
www.gnu.org
gnu is not a kind of software nor do they "make" software.
That's because power users wrote it :)
I'm sorry there are plenty of power/user-friendly tools out there.
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
>In article <slrn7uncu9...@interport.net>, fl...@interport.net
>(void) wrote:
>> It's about ten minutes behind. And this is a function of market share,
>> not an inherent limitation of the technology.
>Hmmm...SoundBlaster Live has been out for quite awhile...Linux
>support...NONE...nVidia TNT 2 has been out for a few months...Linux
>support...NONE! Ten minutes? Yeah...right!
Funny that --- I could have sworn I played Quake2 on that TNT2 recently.
Q2 for linux, that is. And if you take a trip to Creative-land, have a look
around for that SBLive! driver they have. You know, the linux one....
>Are you? Fact is, programming this stuff isn't easy, and without profit,
>there's no incentive.
As evidenced by all the free software there is....
Bernie
--
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors
Plato
Greek philosopher, 429-347 BC
Paul 'Z' EwandeŠ
Jason S. <jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> a écrit dans le message :
slrn7uo5qd....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx...
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> Maybe I'm strange, but I think that the GNOME interface that ships with
> RedHat 6.0 is a *lot* nicer than Windows 98. (Sheesh -- Windows *still*
> doesn't understand the concept of a window manager than runs independently
> of the programs that it is managing -- talk about annoying!)
Excuse me, what do yo mean by your last sentence ? Would you be nice
enoughto elaborate ?
Paul 'Z' Ewande
DeAnn Iwan
<worki...@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam> wrote:
>Can anyone please post me some URLs (1998 or newer please) pointing to
>benchmarks where Linux performs well.
>
>I'm trying to do a balanced table and can't find more than two such
>examples.
>
>NOT a troll or flame bait, I'm trying to be fair.
>
>Thanks,
>db
>
Try looking at the top 500 supercomputers in the world.
And count the ones that are Linux clusters.
Eric Bennett
<ze...@nospam.club-internet.fr> wrote:
He is talking about treating the code that runs the interface as a
separate component, so that the user can uninstall the default one and put
a third-party one in its place. (Or, on a Unix machine, you may have
several installed since different users prefer to run different
interfaces. One might look like a Mac, one might look like Windows, one
might look like NeXTStep, one might be unique, and one might completely
suck [that's twm, the bare-bones one that's installed on just about every
Unix system].)
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Drawing on my fine command of the language, I said nothing.
-Robert Benchley
Jason S.
>In article <7si3c7$831$1...@oceanite.cybercable.fr>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande©"
><ze...@nospam.club-internet.fr> wrote:
>> Jason S. <jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> a écrit dans le message :
>> slrn7uo5qd....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx...
>> <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>> > Maybe I'm strange, but I think that the GNOME interface that ships with
>> > RedHat 6.0 is a *lot* nicer than Windows 98. (Sheesh -- Windows *still*
>> > doesn't understand the concept of a window manager than runs independently
>> > of the programs that it is managing -- talk about annoying!)
>> Excuse me, what do yo mean by your last sentence ? Would you be nice
>> enoughto elaborate ?
>He is talking about treating the code that runs the interface as a
>separate component, so that the user can uninstall the default one and put
>a third-party one in its place. (Or, on a Unix machine, you may have
>several installed since different users prefer to run different
>interfaces. One might look like a Mac, one might look like Windows, one
>might look like NeXTStep, one might be unique, and one might completely
>suck [that's twm, the bare-bones one that's installed on just about every
>Unix system].)
The part that annoys me the most is that when a Windows program gets
tied up with something, you can't minimize it to the taskbar until
it finishes whatever is doing. How 1980s! Since a window manager in X
runs as a separate process, you can always iconify/minimize a busy app,
even if the app isn't responding at the moment.
Hobbyist ©
> The part that annoys me the most is that when a Windows program gets
> tied up with something, you can't minimize it to the taskbar until
> it finishes whatever is doing. How 1980s! Since a window manager in X
> runs as a separate process, you can always iconify/minimize a busy app,
> even if the app isn't responding at the moment.
Are you speaking about win98 or NT here because I'm always able
to minimise any app that may be actively doing something on my
desktop.
--
-=Ali=-
The Lord Of Lemmings
<plas...@iname.com> wrote:
>Ruel Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <slrn7uncu9...@interport.net>, fl...@interport.net
>> (void) wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:36:40 -0400, Ruel Smith <rue...@fuse.net> wrote:
>> >>Linux has 3 major shorcomings:
>> >>
>> >>First, hardware support is a generation behind.
>> >
>> > It's about ten minutes behind. And this is a function of market share,
>> > not an inherent limitation of the technology.
>> >
>>
>> Hmmm...SoundBlaster Live has been out for quite awhile...Linux
>
>Bzzzztt. Wrong try again
>
>>
>> support...NONE...nVidia TNT 2 has been out for a few months...Linux
>
>See SoundBlaster Live. In fact Nvidia has released lots of source for
their cards
>too.
>
>>
>> support...NONE! Ten minutes? Yeah...right!
>
>yeah, 5 minutes.
>
>>
>>
>> >>Second, the "free" thing leaves little incentive for anyone to push the
>> >>envelope. The "latest - greatest" thing in the Windows world is because
>> >>people make money coming up with the stuff. The gadgetry thing is what
>> >>people who use computers at home are so hyped up about. They want the
latest
>> >>games, the latest hardware, the cool snazzy apps, etc..
>> >
>> > Oh puh-leeze. Are you a troll?
>> >
>>
>> Are you? Fact is, programming this stuff isn't easy, and without profit,
Yes they do. What do you think the G in GNOME and GIMP and GCC etc.
stands for? Why, GNU's Not Unix, of course.
--
| Scientia Claus, Lord Of Lemmings <am...@cornell.edu> |
|"The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its hexagons|
| and whose circumference is inaccessible." -- Jorge Luis Borges |
|"One feels as if one is dissolved and merged into nature." -- Einstein|
Ruel Smith
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 19:51:37 -0400, Ruel Smith <rue...@fuse.net> wrote:
> >In article <slrn7uncu9...@interport.net>, fl...@interport.net
> >(void) wrote:
> >
> >Hmmm...SoundBlaster Live has been out for quite awhile...Linux
>
> *shrug*
>
> Even if your facts were correct, I don't think it's such a big deal.
> Plenty of companies will sell you really good hardware put together with
> Linux or FreeBSD in mind.
>
> >>>envelope. The "latest - greatest" thing in the Windows world is because
> >>>people make money coming up with the stuff. The gadgetry thing is what
> >>>people who use computers at home are so hyped up about. They want the
latest
> >>>games, the latest hardware, the cool snazzy apps, etc..
> >>
> >> Oh puh-leeze. Are you a troll?
> >>
> >
> >Are you?
>
I thought so... :o)
>
> >Fact is, programming this stuff isn't easy,
>
> Really!
Yes, REALLY!
>
> >and without profit, there's no incentive.
>
> Then where did all this software I'm using come from? I'm puzzled.
>
> >The free software model has more than a few holes in it.
>
> The free software *library* has holes in it, you mean. Not the same
> thing. The free software *model* is still developing, I think it's a
> bit too soon to start making pronouncements like that.
I'll give you that. I just can't see the free software model sustaining
myself. I can certainly see areas where Linux will probably take over -
verticle markets that run in a networked environment, for instance. I can't
truely see it making great strides into the home market without serious work
in the user friendliness area, and I'm not convinced that enough talent is
out there willing to donate their time to make it so. Keeping up with
hardware advancements could possibly be done by the hardware mfg's
themselves.
>
> >Yeah there are folks out there developing open-source free
> >software, and some damn good stuff too (i.e. Apache), but for the
> >majority of things, you won't find people to develop it for free.
>
> There are application domains for which no open source solution exists
> yet. But the only proof you have that they'll never be filled is the
> cheapest kind: proof by assertion.
>
> >I'm
> >still learning to program (working on that MFC thing...) and I wouldn't
> >waste my free time writing code to give away if it was anything of any
> >substance and complexity.
>
> Ah yes, the old "I-am-a-microcosm-of-the-world" theory of anti-OSS
> advocacy. News flash: you aren't.
Attempt at a cheap shot? My point is that I wouldn't be willing to do it,
and I'm sure there are plenty of others who feel the same way.
<snip>
> Have you ever heard of MacOS X? It's pretty ignorant to claim that unix
> can never be as user-friendly as MacOS when Apple is implementing MacOS
> on unix. They're not doing it by making "tar" and "grep" user-friendly,
> either.
Yes, I have. I didn't say Unix, I said Linux and the "free software
movement". Unix exists in many different variants. Consequently, OS X will
be Unix based, but not Unix. It will not come supplied with X Windows, nor
will it be certified to be POSIX compliant. Apple is implementing their own
windows management in user interface. Personally, I feel that when Apple is
done with OS X, it will be the best thing that has ever happened to Unix -
if it lives up to what Apple promises.
Ruel Smith
__________
The Ghost In The Machine
<ze...@nospam.club-internet.fr> wrote:
>
>Jason S. <jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> a écrit dans le message :
>slrn7uo5qd....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx...
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> Maybe I'm strange, but I think that the GNOME interface that ships with
>> RedHat 6.0 is a *lot* nicer than Windows 98. (Sheesh -- Windows *still*
>> doesn't understand the concept of a window manager than runs independently
>> of the programs that it is managing -- talk about annoying!)
>
>Excuse me, what do yo mean by your last sentence ? Would you be nice
>enoughto elaborate ?
>
I can clarify this from a semi-technical standpoint (not knowing the
guts of the code in Windows well enough, I can't be too specific).
In X, the window manager runs as part of a separate process; this means
that any process wanting to open a window has to communicate with
the window manager process. Because window managers (and X) have been
around for years, there are no problems with such communication --
and the communication itself is not high-bandwidth; at most, the
idea is to move, resize, reparent, and iconify windows, and create
some windows of its own (so that the WM can reparent the app
window to those windows). There is also protocol in X to allow for
the creation of a borderless window (the WM won't touch it); this
is useful for transitory things like menus.
It's a complexity of design that, bizarrely enough, makes things simple.
(Similar things can be said about X's grabbing protocol, as well.)
It is even possible for the window manager to run on a completely
different machine, which means that X terminals are possible (an
X terminal is a terminal that displays X, but cannot run any programs
of its own).
By contrast, in Windows, it appears that window management is handled
in code that is external to, but is run within the same context as,
the application process. Ordinarily, this is not a problem, but the
minute the app hangs, the user is left with what might be termed
a "broken window", which cannot be moved, iconified, or destroyed,
except by killing the application (in NT, this is done through
the Task Manager). It is not clear, to me at least, whether the
management code can be placed in another thread.
Some applications don't have this problem (e.g. Visual Studio),
but that apparently is more because the actual work is done in
another process, leaving the actual Studio process free to
manage the window, among other things.
I don't know Mac's model of managing windows offhand, but suspect
it's somewhat similar to Windows. Perhaps someone can clarify that? :-)
Since this flaw is rather obvious, it's possible that Win2K will change
the windowing management in some fashion, probably by putting it
within Explorer's thread...or it might not. I do not know.
----
ew...@aimnet.com
Leslie Mikesell
>In article <slrn7uofg1...@raven.myth>, war...@eskimo.com
>says...
>In short, as long as I can do virtually all the configuration, from LAN
>access to setting up a web server with FTP, complete with user
>permissions, etc, and _never_ have to see a CLI or text file, and all
>the functions for an object - file, folder, drive - are available _from_
>the GUI's representation of that item (folder name, drive icon, etc),
>then I'll be a happy camper, and will happily agree that Linux's "ease
>of use" issue has, in fact, come a *very* long way since last I looked
>at it.
>
>Now, Linux _does_ have these features, right? *Linux* that is, not some
>particular distro of it.
Linux wisely avoids embedding GUI functions into the kernel, and
equally wisely makes them remotable without extra-cost software,
so it doesn't make any sense to expect GUI programs that aren't
separate items. Since not everyone wants the same thing you
do, it is a feature that the distributions include different things
and that you can add your own favorites. You might like kfm for
file management and exploring, and linuxconf or webmin for machine
administration. Or you might not.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
K. Bjarnason
says...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:44:04 -0700, K. Bjarnason
> <kel...@bc.sympatico.no.spam.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Now, Linux _does_ have these features, right? *Linux* that is, not some
> >particular distro of it.
>
> ... I didn't think so.
WinCE? Can't say one way or the other, never used it. Does Linux
support advanced user group management on a per-folder basis on
handhelds? If so, why? :)
As to Win9x, it does the basic features, not the advanced ones. That
is, it supports renaming, deleting, copying, send to, search, virus
scan, etc, etc. It also supports sharing management, although it is
limted to Win9x's security mechanism; i.e. zero, one or two passwords,
depending on what sort of security you want.
So, NT4, Win9X, Win2K, they all support these features. Some of them
are limited in their functionality due to underlying limitations - i.e.
you don't have user groups with securities under Win9x the way you do
under NT - but the functions are there, and as usable as the underlying
mechanisms are.
Now, last I checked, Linux had no such differentiation of systems; that
is, there's no equivalent of the NT vs Win9x breakdown in the Linux
world. Given that, it occurs to me that we really have to compare Linux
against Win*'s best offerings. Linux supports fancy security, so we
need to compare it to NT. Linux is supposedly getting easier to use, so
we need to compare _that_ against NT as well.
Now, since I can - as noted - do these things, under 9x, NT, and Win2K,
it would seem that we're only missing one side of the discussion:
Linux's mechanism for handling this with comparable ease.
I note you completely ignored that question. I wonder why.
Roberto Alsina
Technically, that software is owned (some of it at least) by the
Free Software Foundation. There is no legal entity called GNU.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
void
<kel...@bc.sympatico.no.spam.ca> wrote:
>
>WinCE? Can't say one way or the other, never used it. Does Linux
>support advanced user group management on a per-folder basis on
>handhelds? If so, why? :)
Why not? Anything that uses a network is potentially multiuser.
Anything that doesn't use a network is to me either a paperweight or a
doorstop, depending how heavy it is.
>Now, last I checked, Linux had no such differentiation of systems; that
>is, there's no equivalent of the NT vs Win9x breakdown in the Linux
>world.
Sort of. FreeBSD has a tiny version that fits on a floppy and is
suitable for routers or terminal servers. Linux has a zillion different
distributions, and runs on hardware from the ultra-low-end (palmtops) to
the nearly-high-end (I'm not running it on my 8-CPU Sun monsters and I
don't plan to any time soon -- but that's to be expected since I don't run
it at all).
On the other hand, the various distributions of Linux or FreeBSD are much
more similar than the various Windowses are, though. I'd even say that
OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD are more similar than any two of (Win3.1,
Win9x, WinNT, Win2K) with the probable exception of the last two.
>Given that, it occurs to me that we really have to compare Linux
>against Win*'s best offerings.
You got that right.
>Linux supports fancy security, so we need to compare it to NT. Linux is
>supposedly getting easier to use, so we need to compare _that_ against
>NT as well.
Unix security is actually a lot less fancy than NT's. It's also much
more effective. Simplicity (of concept, not use) is an underrated
feature in the commercial world. Maybe because it doesn't look good as
a bullet point in a marketing brochure.
>Now, since I can - as noted - do these things, under 9x, NT, and Win2K,
>it would seem that we're only missing one side of the discussion:
>Linux's mechanism for handling this with comparable ease.
>
>I note you completely ignored that question. I wonder why.
I don't know anything about the actual functionings of the various
usability products, because I don't use them. GNOME in particular
intrigues me, but I haven't had much luck getting it to work on FreeBSD.
I didn't try all that hard, but I figured it's a user interface project,
if it's hard to set up then it's not ready yet. And I'm comfortable on
the command line, so I'm not very motivated to switch.
Hobbyist ©
> >Now, since I can - as noted - do these things, under 9x, NT, and Win2K,
> >it would seem that we're only missing one side of the discussion:
> >Linux's mechanism for handling this with comparable ease.
> >
> >I note you completely ignored that question. I wonder why.
>
> I don't know anything about the actual functionings of the various
> usability products, because I don't use them. GNOME in particular
> intrigues me, but I haven't had much luck getting it to work on FreeBSD.
> I didn't try all that hard, but I figured it's a user interface project,
> if it's hard to set up then it's not ready yet. And I'm comfortable on
> the command line, so I'm not very motivated to switch.
Still no direct answer.
Ben. I didn't realise that you use a CLI mainly. Interesting.
--
-=Ali=-
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
>bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au says...
>> Funny that --- I could have sworn I played Quake2 on that TNT2 recently.
>> Q2 for linux, that is. And if you take a trip to Creative-land, have a look
>> around for that SBLive! driver they have. You know, the linux one....
>Indeed, let's look. SB/Live, Drivers. We see:
[...]
>Hmm. Apparently, Creative doesn't seem to think that they have any
>drivers available for Linux that are worth considering. There may be
>something under "Beta Files", but given the PC industry, who wants beta
>_drivers_?
Everybody who happily posts how stable their W2k system is running?
And don't take this the wrong way, but in my experience, a beta driver for
linux tends to be a whole lot more stable than a released driver for
Windows, at least as far as video capture is concerned. I have no personal
experience with the SBLive! driver, but except for "It limits what kernel
you can use", I have not heard anything bad about it at all.
Bernie
--
All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is
for enough good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish-born Whig politician, 1729-97
void
You asked me why I ignored one part of your question. The above is the
answer to that. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
>Ben. I didn't realise that you use a CLI mainly. Interesting.
I use X, but more as a windowing system than as a desktop environment,
if that makes any sense. My most often-launched programs have places on
my WindowMaker menus, and I have several virtual desktops, but since
many of my tasks aren't repetitive, I need and use the flexibility of the
CLI.
Xterm and netscape are the two X clients I usually have running.
Hobbyist ©
> >> I don't know anything about the actual functionings of the various
> >> usability products, because I don't use them. GNOME in particular
> >> intrigues me, but I haven't had much luck getting it to work on FreeBSD.
> >> I didn't try all that hard, but I figured it's a user interface project,
> >> if it's hard to set up then it's not ready yet. And I'm comfortable on
> >> the command line, so I'm not very motivated to switch.
> >
> >Still no direct answer.
>
> You asked me why I ignored one part of your question. The above is the
> answer to that. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
You gave a long-winded answer completed by the fact that you use
mainly a CLI when the question was a GUI based one. Will any
windows manager offer the type of context menu functions that my
NT system does. See attached .jpg.
> >Ben. I didn't realise that you use a CLI mainly. Interesting.
>
> I use X, but more as a windowing system than as a desktop environment,
> if that makes any sense.
What you said, indeed didn't make much sense to my non-technical
ears. :) Please explain.
> My most often-launched programs have places on
> my WindowMaker menus, and I have several virtual desktops, but since
> many of my tasks aren't repetitive, I need and use the flexibility of the
> CLI.
>
> Xterm and netscape are the two X clients I usually have running.
If I were to use Linux I'd be using mainly X11 apps. I prefer a
GUI. That's just personal preference.
--
-=Ali=-
Nick Manka
Hobbyist © <hobb...@nospam.net> writes:
> begin 644 menu2.jpg
Please don't post binaries to USENET groups not explicitly chartered
for such. URL references are just as effective and don't take up
as much space.
Hobbyist ©
My apologies.
It won't happen again. ;) I was wondering if I was doing the
right thing and I guess I got bitten.
--
-=Ali=-
John Jensen
discussion group. A better method would be to put the JPG on your web
page and provide a URL in the body of your message.
No doubt Windows provides a right-click, context-menu, for doing just
that.
John
K. Bjarnason
says...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:44:12 -0700, K. Bjarnason
> <kel...@bc.sympatico.no.spam.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Hmm. Apparently, Creative doesn't seem to think that they have any
> >drivers available for Linux that are worth considering. There may be
> >something under "Beta Files", but given the PC industry, who wants beta
> >_drivers_?
>
> You'll find that the software is of similar or better quality to what
> you're used to under Windows.
If it's release, it's release. If it's beta, it's beta. Labelling it
"Beta" and calling it "release" must be Linuxspeak.
K. Bjarnason
says...
> K. Bjarnason <kel...@bc.sympatico.no.spam.ca> wrote:
>
> [discussion of file sharing cliped]
>
> : Now, Linux _does_ have these features, right? *Linux* that is, not some
> : particular distro of it.
>
> Linux supports a fair variety of file sharing methods and protocols, out
> of the box. Your comment "not some particular distro" cannot really be
> accurate, since the strict definition of Linux is just a kernal, and as
> such has no end-user (esp. GUI) features. The distros package various
> things, I use NFS and I find that easy enough.
The reason I say "not some distro" is simply that since the kernel _is_
Linux, and presumably the security mechanisms behind it are pretty much
the same from one distro to the next, why isn't there a standardized and
friendly way to access them - and the other basic maintenance functions?
With Windows, I don't have to worry that if I get it preinstalled by
Dell, it won't support the GUI-based security features, but if I get it
off the shelf at CompuCenter, it will have those but not the copy/move
features, but if I get it at London Drugs, it'll have those but not the
compression and file system scanning features, but if I get it...
John Jensen
: In article <7smf6s$qbi$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>, jj...@primenet.com
: says...
: > Linux supports a fair variety of file sharing methods and protocols, out
: > of the box. Your comment "not some particular distro" cannot really be
: > accurate, since the strict definition of Linux is just a kernal, and as
: > such has no end-user (esp. GUI) features. The distros package various
: > things, I use NFS and I find that easy enough.
: The reason I say "not some distro" is simply that since the kernel _is_
: Linux, and presumably the security mechanisms behind it are pretty much
: the same from one distro to the next, why isn't there a standardized and
: friendly way to access them - and the other basic maintenance functions?
You are correct that some of the mechanisms are in the kernel, but no UI
policy is in the kernel. Any number of GUIs can be built atop it.
People who come from systems with a single GUI (Mac, Windows, ...) tend to
look skeptically at this confusion. It's a cultural thing. Consider
going to the store to buy barbeque sauce. They all have the same
ingredients, but they hit you with 100 choices. You can either look at
those choices as a pleasure or a burden.
If you think of it as a burden, you can let someone else worry about it
for you. That's what a "distro" is. Someone else makes selections and
creates a Linux with a certain style or theme.
: With Windows, I don't have to worry that if I get it preinstalled by
: Dell, it won't support the GUI-based security features, but if I get it
: off the shelf at CompuCenter, it will have those but not the copy/move
: features, but if I get it at London Drugs, it'll have those but not the
: compression and file system scanning features, but if I get it...
You are asking for a distro, but rejecting distros ....
John
Hobbyist ©
> It is not considered polite to post binaries (esp. large binaries) to a
> discussion group. A better method would be to put the JPG on your web
> page and provide a URL in the body of your message.
Actually, I don't have a webpage, but I've since looked into it
and realise that I can get one for free.
> No doubt Windows provides a right-click, context-menu, for doing just
> that.
Yes it does.
--
-=Ali=-
Lars Träger
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > Um, no. What a silly thing to write. Please, limit posts to those that make
> > sense. (the silence is deafening)
What do you expect from a rabid NT user?
> His point was that you shouldn't go looking for numbers to show what you
> want to prove, even if your goal is to be balanced. Perhaps a better
> question would have been "Can anyone point me towards some benchmarks
> comparing Linux to other OSes?"
He tries to prove that Linux is not better than NT.
Lars T.
John Jensen
: On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, John Jensen posted :
: > It is not considered polite to post binaries (esp. large binaries) to a
: > discussion group. A better method would be to put the JPG on your web
: > page and provide a URL in the body of your message.
: Actually, I don't have a webpage, but I've since looked into it
: and realise that I can get one for free.
Just curious ... do any of the free ones run on NT?
void
<kel...@bc.sympatico.no.spam.ca> wrote:
>In article <slrn7ut6dv...@interport.net>, fl...@interport.net
>says...
>>
>> When it comes to open source software, consider "Beta" to be "Release".
>> You'll find that the software is of similar or better quality to what
>> you're used to under Windows.
>
>If it's release, it's release. If it's beta, it's beta. Labelling it
>"Beta" and calling it "release" must be Linuxspeak.
You've got it exactly backwards. I'm saying that what others call
"beta", MS calls "release", so feel free to use beta unix software
because it will meet or exceed the quality standards you've come to
expect.
Drestin Black
Got any benchmarks yet? The question has been there for ages... no one yet.
Lars Träger <Fam.T...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:1dyolp3.33k...@p3e9c36e3.dip.t-dialin.net...
Hobbyist ©
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobb...@nospam.net> wrote:
> : On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, John Jensen posted :
>
> : > It is not considered polite to post binaries (esp. large binaries) to a
> : > discussion group. A better method would be to put the JPG on your web
> : > page and provide a URL in the body of your message.
>
> : Actually, I don't have a webpage, but I've since looked into it
> : and realise that I can get one for free.
>
> Just curious ... do any of the free ones run on NT?
If a free server space subscription for webpage hosting will run
on NT? What kind of a question is that?
--
-=Ali=-
void
>On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, void posted :
>
>mainly a CLI when the question was a GUI based one. Will any
>windows manager offer the type of context menu functions that my
>NT system does. See attached .jpg.
He asked why I didn't answer a GUI question, and the answer is, "I don't
use 'em, how should I answer questions about them?" There, is that
clear enough?
>> I use X, but more as a windowing system than as a desktop environment,
>> if that makes any sense.
>
>What you said, indeed didn't make much sense to my non-technical
>ears. :) Please explain.
I don't use my window manager to "do tasks", I use it to start other apps
which I use to do those tasks. There's a very low level of integration
there. I rarely use a mouse.
Is this giving a better picture?
Darren Meyer [technology]
Hobbyist Š wrote:
>
> On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, John Jensen posted :
>
> > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobb...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > : On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, John Jensen posted :
> >
> > : > It is not considered polite to post binaries (esp. large binaries) to a
> > : > discussion group. A better method would be to put the JPG on your web
> > : > page and provide a URL in the body of your message.
> >
> > : Actually, I don't have a webpage, but I've since looked into it
> > : and realise that I can get one for free.
> >
> > Just curious ... do any of the free ones run on NT?
>
> If a free server space subscription for webpage hosting will run
> on NT? What kind of a question is that?
I belive the question being asked was not "if they could", but rather
"do they?" In other words, how many free-hosting systems choose NT to
run their services? Even MS uses Solaris (another UNIX cousin) to run
HotMail, because NT couldn't hold up to the task.
- Darren
[The opinions expressed are those of the symbiote in my brain.]
Perry Pip
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:36:40 -0400, Ruel Smith <rue...@fuse.net> wrote:
>Hmmm...SoundBlaster Live has been out for quite awhile...Linux
>support...NONE...
Creative has hired two full time Linux programmers. SB Live beta drivers
have been released.
>nVidia TNT 2 has been out for a few months...Linux
>support...NONE! Ten minutes? Yeah...right!
Huh??? Nvidia released a drop-in X server for Xfree 3.3.3 dated 5/17/99
with TNT2 support. They also contributed the the code for TNT2 support
that has been included in Xfree since 3.3.4.
Get a fucking clue, asshole. The problem is not with Linux TNT2
support but with your inability to find a driver that's been out since
shortly after the chip was released.
Geez....
Chad Myers
"Darren Meyer [technology]" <d...@think4d.com> wrote in message
news:37EFCDAD...@think4d.com...
>
>
> I belive the question being asked was not "if they could", but rather
> "do they?" In other words, how many free-hosting systems choose NT to
> run their services? Even MS uses Solaris (another UNIX cousin) to run
> HotMail, because NT couldn't hold up to the task.
>
> - Darren
> [The opinions expressed are those of the symbiote in my brain.]
Don't you have to have a license to be that ignorant?
Did you just get out of high school? Have you ever been in the real
world?
Have you ever had to deploy a large-scale, heavily used web site?
If so, then you know that you can't just decide on day that you're going
to up and switch platforms and it magically happens.
The fact is, Microsoft inherited this Solaris monstrosety from the
original
HotMail owners and they haven't yet had the chance to migrate it to
anything else. They're too busy keeping what they have running.
They have stated that when Win2K is released, they will roll out Hotmail
on Windows2000/IIS 5.
Do you even read facts or do you just spout out the dribble that you
have
heard from other ignorant posters on the /. forum?
Chad
John Jensen
: On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, John Jensen posted :
: > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobb...@nospam.net> wrote:
: > : On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, John Jensen posted :
: >
: > : > It is not considered polite to post binaries (esp. large binaries) to a
: > : > discussion group. A better method would be to put the JPG on your web
: > : > page and provide a URL in the body of your message.
: >
: > : Actually, I don't have a webpage, but I've since looked into it
: > : and realise that I can get one for free.
: >
: > Just curious ... do any of the free ones run on NT?
: If a free server space subscription for webpage hosting will run
: on NT? What kind of a question is that?
I laugh at you, I say "do" and you say "will".
John
void
>
>Have you ever had to deploy a large-scale, heavily used web site?
Yes.
>If so, then you know that you can't just decide on day that you're going
>to up and switch platforms and it magically happens.
That's true.
>The fact is, Microsoft inherited this Solaris monstrosety from the
>original HotMail owners and they haven't yet had the chance to migrate
>it to anything else. They're too busy keeping what they have running.
... poorly. But actually, they tried to migrate it over and couldn't
make it work on NT.
Jerry
>
> "Darren Meyer [technology]" <d...@think4d.com> wrote in message
> news:37EFCDAD...@think4d.com...
> >
> >
> > I belive the question being asked was not "if they could", but rather
> > "do they?" In other words, how many free-hosting systems choose NT to
> > run their services? Even MS uses Solaris (another UNIX cousin) to run
> > HotMail, because NT couldn't hold up to the task.
> >
> > - Darren
> > [The opinions expressed are those of the symbiote in my brain.]
>
> Don't you have to have a license to be that ignorant?
>
> Did you just get out of high school? Have you ever been in the real
> world?
>
> to up and switch platforms and it magically happens.
>
> original
> HotMail owners and they haven't yet had the chance to migrate it to
> anything else. They're too busy keeping what they have running.
Oh thats fact is it ? Its also fact that they have mofidified Hotmail
beyond belief - taking it from a usable email system to something that
is barley usable. Seems to me that they have devoted many man-days to
doing that. Makes me wonder why they don;t run it under NT seeing as
they have many developers working on making Hotmail unusable. You are
WRONG - NT would;nt hack it - thats why they have'nt ported it to NT -
nothing to do with not having the chance....
>
> They have stated that when Win2K is released, they will roll out Hotmail
> on Windows2000/IIS 5.
So they will have the chance then will they ?
>
> Do you even read facts or do you just spout out the dribble that you
> have
> heard from other ignorant posters on the /. forum?
You just spout out MS drivle....
Still - you are not called shit-for-brains for nothing !!
>
> Chad
Hobbyist ©
> >You gave a long-winded answer completed by the fact that you use
> >mainly a CLI when the question was a GUI based one. Will any
> >windows manager offer the type of context menu functions that my
> >NT system does. See attached .jpg.
>
> He asked why I didn't answer a GUI question, and the answer is, "I don't
> use 'em, how should I answer questions about them?" There, is that
> clear enough?
Someone posts a question to an open group concerning linux GUI
offerings ( I know that linux doesn't specifically have a GUI but
I don't know how better to put it). The only answer he gets is
from you who's basic response is that you don't use a GUI.
That's very helpful.
Can I do task X faster with a CLI than a GUI.
Someone raises his hand and says, "I use only a GUI therefore I
can't help you."
How helpful. :)
> >> I use X, but more as a windowing system than as a desktop environment,
> >> if that makes any sense.
> >
> >What you said, indeed didn't make much sense to my non-technical
> >ears. :) Please explain.
>
> I don't use my window manager to "do tasks", I use it to start other apps
> which I use to do those tasks. There's a very low level of integration
> there. I rarely use a mouse.
>
> Is this giving a better picture?
Yes it is, I see what you mean. :) Isn't this the way many linux
users use X?
--
-=Ali=-
Hobbyist ©
posted :
> > > : Actually, I don't have a webpage, but I've since looked into it
> > > : and realise that I can get one for free.
> > >
> > > Just curious ... do any of the free ones run on NT?
> >
> > If a free server space subscription for webpage hosting will run
> > on NT? What kind of a question is that?
>
> I belive the question being asked was not "if they could", but rather
> "do they?" In other words, how many free-hosting systems choose NT to
> run their services? Even MS uses Solaris (another UNIX cousin) to run
> HotMail, because NT couldn't hold up to the task.
OK, with your clarification in mind I see the perfect sense in
the question. I don't know the answer to that.
--
-=Ali=-
void
wrote:
>
>Someone posts a question to an open group concerning linux GUI
>offerings ( I know that linux doesn't specifically have a GUI but
>I don't know how better to put it). The only answer he gets is
>from you who's basic response is that you don't use a GUI.
>
>That's very helpful.
>
>Can I do task X faster with a CLI than a GUI.
>
>Someone raises his hand and says, "I use only a GUI therefore I
>can't help you."
>
>How helpful. :)
I answered some of the other things he said in that post. Anyway, I
don't have to defend my postings to you, go look 'em up in DejaNews if
you're that interested.
>Yes it is, I see what you mean. :) Isn't this the way many linux
>users use X?
Why don't you ask one?
But seriously, yes ... a joke going around about a year ago was that the
mouse is that thing you use to switch between xterms. I'm sure you'll
try to make hay out of that statement, *sigh*.
Chad Myers
"void" <fl...@interport.net> wrote in message
news:slrn7uvei3...@interport.net...
>
>
> >If so, then you know that you can't just decide on day that you're
going
> >to up and switch platforms and it magically happens.
>
>
> >The fact is, Microsoft inherited this Solaris monstrosety from the
> >original HotMail owners and they haven't yet had the chance to
migrate
> >it to anything else. They're too busy keeping what they have running.
>
Right, because of the Solaris trash they're running it on. They have had
to
make a couple workaround already to get past inherent limitations in the
OS they're using.
> But actually, they tried to migrate it over and couldn't
> make it work on NT.
Spare us your FUD. You have no proof, and the only word we have to
go on is Microsoft's which has posted a statement saying that no attempt
to move to NT has been done.
Hobbyist ©
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobb...@nospam.net> wrote:
> : On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, John Jensen posted :
>
> : > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hobbyist_=A9?= <hobb...@nospam.net> wrote:
> : > : On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, John Jensen posted :
> : >
> : > : > It is not considered polite to post binaries (esp. large binaries) to a
> : > : > discussion group. A better method would be to put the JPG on your web
> : > : > page and provide a URL in the body of your message.
> : >
> : > : Actually, I don't have a webpage, but I've since looked into it
> : > : and realise that I can get one for free.
> : >
> : > Just curious ... do any of the free ones run on NT?
>
> : If a free server space subscription for webpage hosting will run
> : on NT? What kind of a question is that?
>
> I laugh at you, I say "do" and you say "will".
Donovan noted my misunderstanding and clarified for me. Sorry
that you, the one who asked the question, couldn't do the same.
--
-=Ali=-
Chad Mulligan
void wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:16:56 -0500, Chad Myers <cmy...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:
>>
>>Have you ever had to deploy a large-scale, heavily used web site?
>
>Yes.
Ditto
>
>>If so, then you know that you can't just decide on day that you're going
>>to up and switch platforms and it magically happens.
>
>That's true.
Agreed
>
>>The fact is, Microsoft inherited this Solaris monstrosety from the
>>original HotMail owners and they haven't yet had the chance to migrate
>>it to anything else. They're too busy keeping what they have running.
>
>... poorly. But actually, they tried to migrate it over and couldn't
>make it work on NT.
>
Microsoft categorically, and inside sources I know concur, denies this
rumour.
Chad Myers
"Jerry" <jerrys121DEL...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37EFC7...@hotmail.com...
> Oh thats fact is it ? Its also fact that they have mofidified Hotmail
> beyond belief - taking it from a usable email system to something that
> is barley usable. Seems to me that they have devoted many man-days to
> doing that. Makes me wonder why they don;t run it under NT seeing as
> they have many developers working on making Hotmail unusable. You are
> WRONG - NT would;nt hack it - thats why they have'nt ported it to NT -
> nothing to do with not having the chance....
Ah.. and you have proof of this? Or are you just spouting more clouded
FUDed opinions. It's the later, with a doubt.
Perhaps they should run it on Linux, instead? HAHAHAHAH
That's a joke =)
>
> >
> > They have stated that when Win2K is released, they will roll out
Hotmail
> > on Windows2000/IIS 5.
>
> So they will have the chance then will they ?
Right now it's not a priority, when Win2K comes out, they will make it a
priority
because they want to show off their flagship OS.
> You just spout out MS drivle....
How do you figure? Is Facts = MS Drivle, then yes, I am spouting much
of it!
If not, at least MS Drivle is closer to the facts than Linux FUD.
>
> Still - you are not called shit-for-brains for nothing !!
>
I thought Edwards was Shit-for-brains? I thought I was Dumb-F**ker or
some other
obscenity.
Chad
Chad Myers
"Chad Myers" <cmy...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7sogd3$aa8$1...@news.jump.net...
>
> Ah.. and you have proof of this? Or are you just spouting more clouded
> FUDed opinions. It's the later, with a doubt.
with/d/without
Chad
Darren Meyer [technology]
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Darren Meyer [technology]" <d...@think4d.com> wrote in message
> news:37EFCDAD...@think4d.com...
> >
> >
> > I belive the question being asked was not "if they could", but rather
> > "do they?" In other words, how many free-hosting systems choose NT to
> > run their services? Even MS uses Solaris (another UNIX cousin) to run
> > HotMail, because NT couldn't hold up to the task.
> >
> > - Darren
> > [The opinions expressed are those of the symbiote in my brain.]
>
> Don't you have to have a license to be that ignorant?
>
> Did you just get out of high school? Have you ever been in the real
> world?
> Have you ever had to deploy a large-scale, heavily used web site?
>
> If so, then you know that you can't just decide on day that you're going
> to up and switch platforms and it magically happens.
>
> The fact is, Microsoft inherited this Solaris monstrosety from the
> original
> HotMail owners and they haven't yet had the chance to migrate it to
> anything else. They're too busy keeping what they have running.
>
> They have stated that when Win2K is released, they will roll out Hotmail
> on Windows2000/IIS 5.
>
> Do you even read facts or do you just spout out the dribble that you
> have
> heard from other ignorant posters on the /. forum?
>
> Chad
Actually, Solaris was migrated to NT for HotMail -- search Yahoo for the
press release. Then, quietly (understandably), MS migrated back to
Solaris because NT couldn't handle the massive load. Win2K is supposed
to better handle massive client load, and they probably will migrate.
I guess the question is -- do you always get so angry when someone
points out a weakness?
Oh, and by the way, I integrate large-capacity mission critical systems
for a living.
- Darren
[the above opinions were stolen from my pet bat]
Hobbyist ©
> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 14:03:48 -0500, Hobbyist Š <hobb...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >Someone posts a question to an open group concerning linux GUI
> >offerings ( I know that linux doesn't specifically have a GUI but
> >I don't know how better to put it). The only answer he gets is
> >from you who's basic response is that you don't use a GUI.
> >
> >That's very helpful.
> >
> >Can I do task X faster with a CLI than a GUI.
> >
> >Someone raises his hand and says, "I use only a GUI therefore I
> >can't help you."
> >
> >How helpful. :)
>
> I answered some of the other things he said in that post. Anyway, I
> don't have to defend my postings to you, go look 'em up in DejaNews if
> you're that interested.
Actually I didn't want this exchange to break down into a
bickering argument. Someone asked what I considered to be an
important question from the POV of someone who uses a GUI to it's
fullest. The question was if any of the GUI offerings through
Linux offered useful, efficient and productive context menu
selections as is seen with win9x/NT. The explorer folder
right-click context was sited as an example of this.
A direct answer to the question would either be a 'yes' with
explanation or a 'no'.
You spent three paragraphs speaking indirectly about the point of
the question, even bringing the BSD's into the argument and then
finishing up by saying that you don't really *use* a GUI so you
can't really say. Hardly a direct answer IMHO.
When I originally said that you didn't give a direct response I
meant it in good faith. I guess you aren't often accused of
giving indirect responses to questions asked and take offense to
my making such a claim. I'm sorry if I put you off. :(
> >Yes it is, I see what you mean. :) Isn't this the way many linux
> >users use X?
>
> Why don't you ask one?
I guess that I've lost your friendly cooperation. :)
> But seriously, yes ... a joke going around about a year ago was that the
> mouse is that thing you use to switch between xterms. I'm sure you'll
> try to make hay out of that statement, *sigh*.
Nope. Why would you think that?
--
-=Ali=-
Darren Meyer [technology]
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "void" <fl...@interport.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn7uvei3...@interport.net...
> > On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:16:56 -0500, Chad Myers <cmy...@austin.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >Have you ever had to deploy a large-scale, heavily used web site?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > >If so, then you know that you can't just decide on day that you're
> going
> > >to up and switch platforms and it magically happens.
> >
> > That's true.
> >
> > >The fact is, Microsoft inherited this Solaris monstrosety from the
> > >original HotMail owners and they haven't yet had the chance to
> migrate
> > >it to anything else. They're too busy keeping what they have running.
> >
> > ... poorly.
>
> Right, because of the Solaris trash they're running it on. They have had
> to
> make a couple workaround already to get past inherent limitations in the
> OS they're using.
you amuse me. You accuse me and this newsgroup of OS bashing, then
proceed to do so yourself. Amazing. Ever consider political office? :P
> > But actually, they tried to migrate it over and couldn't
> > make it work on NT.
>
> Spare us your FUD. You have no proof, and the only word we have to
> go on is Microsoft's which has posted a statement saying that no attempt
> to move to NT has been done.
Except the press release that Microsoft issued when they bought HotMail,
which, IIRC, stated that it had been moved to NT. Anyone have any hit
logs to show this?? Please?
void
>>
>> ... poorly.
>
>Right, because of the Solaris trash they're running it on. They have had
>to
>make a couple workaround already to get past inherent limitations in the
>OS they're using.
Such as?
(Line wrap, *please*?)
Chad Myers
>
> Actually, Solaris was migrated to NT for HotMail -- search Yahoo for
the
> press release. Then, quietly (understandably), MS migrated back to
> Solaris because NT couldn't handle the massive load. Win2K is
supposed
> to better handle massive client load, and they probably will migrate.
Upon searching Yahoo for "Solaris NT hotmail" I received many hits
(most unrellated... damned shoddy search engines). Many were
merely anecdotal, unfounded claims that "M$ NT sux cuz it caN'T ruN
HoTmaIL!" on some message board on foo.bar.com or something
But I found this link:
http://www.eu.microsoft.com/ntserver/web/news/msnw/Hotmail.asp
and I also found this:
http://www.kirch.net/unix-nt/hotmail.html
Which is the worst piece of undocumented FUD I have ever seen.
Any respectable Journalist would shoot him/herself if they had to
write a subjective wholy-biased, unfounded piece of garbage like
this.
Who were the inside sources? Inside sources for whom? MS? Sun?
McDonalds?
Show me where the Hotmail team leader or some VERIFIABLE
source claimed these things, and I will admit you're right, until then
the facts state that MS did/has not attempted to migrate to NT yet.
Paul 'Z' EwandeŠ
Chad Myers <cmy...@austin.rr.com> a écrit dans le message :
7sogd3$aa8$1...@news.jump.net...
<SNIP> Some bickering over OSen as usual </SNIP>
> > Still - you are not called shit-for-brains for nothing !!
> >
>
> I thought Edwards was Shit-for-brains? I thought I was Dumb-F**ker or
> some other obscenity.
LOL !
Paul 'Z' Ewande
Chad Myers
> you amuse me. You accuse me and this newsgroup of OS bashing, then
> proceed to do so yourself. Amazing. Ever consider political office?
:P
When did I call you an OS Basher? Please post the URL on DejaNews.
My claims, however, are document. MS in their press release stated that
there were several MAJOR limitations to Solaris that had to be patched
or completely modified in order to make the system work. These included
memory addressing problems/limitations and file system limitations.
I can post the URL to that release if you haven't seen it already.
>
> Except the press release that Microsoft issued when they bought
HotMail,
> which, IIRC, stated that it had been moved to NT. Anyone have any hit
> logs to show this?? Please?
Hmm... I've never seen that, and you're the first person I've heard, in
this
ongoing debate, to have ever brought that up.
Chad
John Jensen
: On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, John Jensen posted :
: > I laugh at you, I say "do" and you say "will".
: Donovan noted my misunderstanding and clarified for me. Sorry
: that you, the one who asked the question, couldn't do the same.
We all speak from from our experiences. My posting is shaped by my own
experience with UNIX and NT. A few years ago I was working on some UNIX
server software. I was asked to port the server to NT. I said OK, cool,
new market and all that. There were some who said "we should make NT our
primary platform." I said "wait a minute, NT can't do what we are now
doing with UNIX". They said "NT will get there, and it will kill those
UNIXes. Microsoft always wins."
So when I say "do" and you say "will", I hear those old voices. If I
responded to them, rather than to you, I apologize.
John
Darren Meyer [technology]
had a hoax pulled on me. The point I was attempting to make in my
original post stands, however -- I did not intend to bash NT in any way,
but rather point out that even MS acknowleges (if you talk to
non-marketing folk) that NT was never designed for continual
high-capacity serving. It has been patched to support it, but generally
UNIX backends for such applications are superior.
Perhaps I was mistaken about the HotMail incident.
- Darren
[the opinions expressed were fed to me via sub-neural implants]
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Darren Meyer [technology]" <d...@think4d.com> wrote in message
Chad Myers
> Since I cannot find the original press release I was shown, perhaps I
> had a hoax pulled on me. The point I was attempting to make in my
> original post stands, however -- I did not intend to bash NT in any
way,
> but rather point out that even MS acknowleges (if you talk to
> non-marketing folk) that NT was never designed for continual
> high-capacity serving. It has been patched to support it, but
generally
> UNIX backends for such applications are superior.
Hmm..see, I would disagree. NT has the capability of being a
heavy-duty backend in all but the largest multi-terabyte (or whatever)
solutions. Check out terraserver.microsoft.com and the Tech
behind the site http://terraserver.microsoft.com/terra_tech.asp
NT Enterprise Edition CAN server some of the largest sites, and
also handle the backend servers. Also note, that it's running on
Alpha, a tribute to NT's multi-platform scalability.
The fact is, is that UNIX administrators who have been making
the big bucks on their UNIX systems (because they're so over
complicated and difficult to administer -- job security) are
frightened by the threat of a new kid on the block that is
easier to administer, has a lower TOC, and doesn't
require and army to administrate, so they make up lies about
how it can't scale, or it's just a toy, etc.
When presented with the facts, you can't really argue. NT is already
there, and Win2K will be a more mature, more robust, easier to
manage solution than even NT 4.0, let alone Unix.
Yes, I HAVE used Win2K and NO it's NOT vaporware, it's real
and it's here and it it's already in Release Candadite stage. Release
in October is emminent. (Although, I will admit, Datacenter server
may not make it until some time in Win2K, but it's a much more
complex beast).
>
> Perhaps I was mistaken about the HotMail incident.
No problem. Many people have heard the FUD spread
and want to believe it, but when presented with the facts
and confronted about the unfounded claims, they realize
it's just another Linux/Un*x FUD smear.
Chad
void
<d...@think4d.com> wrote:
>Since I cannot find the original press release I was shown, perhaps I
>had a hoax pulled on me. The point I was attempting to make in my
>original post stands, however -- I did not intend to bash NT in any way,
>but rather point out that even MS acknowleges (if you talk to
>non-marketing folk) that NT was never designed for continual
>high-capacity serving. It has been patched to support it, but generally
>UNIX backends for such applications are superior.
As far as I can tell from reading NT design documents, there's no reason
the NT kernel couldn't support a serious, reliable system. It's just
that Microsoft never chose to implement such a thing.
void
>
>Hmm..see, I would disagree. NT has the capability of being a
>heavy-duty backend in all but the largest multi-terabyte (or whatever)
>solutions. Check out terraserver.microsoft.com and the Tech
>behind the site http://terraserver.microsoft.com/terra_tech.asp
>NT Enterprise Edition CAN server some of the largest sites, and
>also handle the backend servers. Also note, that it's running on
>Alpha, a tribute to NT's multi-platform scalability.
Oh yeah, NT's multi-platform support leads the industry. Meanwhile,
unix runs on more different kinds of hardware than every other OS in
history, combined.
Does NT on Alpha even have a future now that Compaq seems to have abandoned
it?
>The fact is, is that UNIX administrators who have been making
>the big bucks on their UNIX systems (because they're so over
>complicated and difficult to administer -- job security) are
>frightened by the threat of a new kid on the block that is
>easier to administer, has a lower TOC, and doesn't
>require and army to administrate, so they make up lies about
>how it can't scale, or it's just a toy, etc.
I'm a-quaking in my boots.
I can administer[0] servers a continent away over a low-bandwidth,
high-latency connection, because it's all text. Can you do that with
PCAnywhere?
>When presented with the facts, you can't really argue. NT is already
>there, and Win2K will be a more mature, more robust, easier to
>manage solution than even NT 4.0, let alone Unix.
The implication being that NT4 is more mature and robust than unix?
Give me a break!
[0] never "administrate"
Chad Myers
> Oh yeah, NT's multi-platform support leads the industry. Meanwhile,
> unix runs on more different kinds of hardware than every other OS in
> history, combined.
Did I say lead the industry? I just said that NT is multi-platform and
scalable. This is a fact. Why do you make up things to argue about?
Because you got confronted with facts, you must make up things
so that you sound intelligent?
Not to mention that Unix is not one single entity and that the types of
Unixes that would run on a large scale like that probably only support
a few platforms as well.
>
> Does NT on Alpha even have a future now that Compaq seems to have
abandoned
> it?
Does it matter? The fact is, is that NT IS capable of running on many
platforms, it just
isn't doing so right now because x86 is the only really super-profitable
platform right
now. Corporations still have to make money, you know. Not everyone
lives in
Dream world with linux.
> I'm a-quaking in my boots.
You should be.
>
> I can administer[0] servers a continent away over a low-bandwidth,
> high-latency connection, because it's all text. Can you do that with
> PCAnywhere?
Don't know about PCAnywhere, but I can with Remotely Possible/32
as well as the built in tools that come with NT. Just because it
doesn't
have telnet, doesn't mean it can't be remote admin'd.
> The implication being that NT4 is more mature and robust than unix?
> Give me a break!
<sigh> Do you even read what I type or are you just so blinded by FUD
that you can't see anything? I said that Win2K was more mature and
robust than NT 4. Although, I do admit that the "let alone Unix" was a
bit misleading.
Perhaps I should've said that Win2K will be more robust than Unix.
Win2K will be an enterprise-wide Sys Admin's wet dream. It will
allow him to deploy applications automatically enterprise wide
with ease, it will give him powerful tools for admining all his servers
from one location, all with a unified X.500 and LDAP compliant
Directory service, ladda ladda ladda, I could go on and on.
Sure, most of this stuff can be achieved with using a combination
of different unix variants and 3rd party solutions, but then all
you're doing is adding to the total cost of ownship to prove a
silly point.
About the maturity thing, Win2K is not more mature than Unix, but
it is mature. Sorry for the misleading statement.
Chad
Chad Mulligan
Stuart Fox wrote in message <7soipn$8f42q$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz>...
>> >
>> > "Darren Meyer [technology]" <d...@think4d.com> wrote in message
>> > news:37EFCDAD...@think4d.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I belive the question being asked was not "if they could", but rather
>> > > "do they?" In other words, how many free-hosting systems choose NT
to
>> > > run their services? Even MS uses Solaris (another UNIX cousin) to
run
>> > > HotMail, because NT couldn't hold up to the task.
>> > >
>> > > - Darren
>> > > [The opinions expressed are those of the symbiote in my brain.]
>> >
>> > Don't you have to have a license to be that ignorant?
>> >
>> > Did you just get out of high school? Have you ever been in the real
>> > world?
>> >
going
>> > to up and switch platforms and it magically happens.
>> >
>> > original
>> > HotMail owners and they haven't yet had the chance to migrate it to
>> > anything else. They're too busy keeping what they have running.
>>
>> beyond belief - taking it from a usable email system to something that
>> is barley usable. Seems to me that they have devoted many man-days to
>> doing that. Makes me wonder why they don;t run it under NT seeing as
>> they have many developers working on making Hotmail unusable. You are
>> WRONG - NT would;nt hack it - thats why they have'nt ported it to NT -
>> nothing to do with not having the chance....
>>
>
For once Jerry has a real fact in one of his statements. The Hotmail site
was just updated to an active server page design. The inaccuracies in his
statement are that is is unusable and the disinformation about NT.
Almost everyone here agrees that converting the largest web email site on
the planet would be a large undertaking. Were I planning the project I'd
probably start by migrating the actuall application to a version that was
portable to the intended destination operating system. Seems that is just
what Microsoft has accomplished, the first step in their intended migration
to a better platform, NT.
>Thanks
>
>Stu
>
>
The Lord Of Lemmings
<ral...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <amg39-25099...@r0131.resnet.cornell.edu>,
> am...@cornell.edu (The Lord Of Lemmings) wrote:
>> In article <37EC5A36...@iname.com>, Mark Robinson
>> <plas...@iname.com> wrote:
>> >"a GNU software" What?
>> >www.gnu.org
>> >gnu is not a kind of software nor do they "make" software.
>>
>> Yes they do. What do you think the G in GNOME and GIMP and GCC etc.
>> stands for? Why, GNU's Not Unix, of course.
>
>Technically, that software is owned (some of it at least) by the
>Free Software Foundation. There is no legal entity called GNU.
>
>--
>Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Ok. Members of the GNU project make software. *picks nits*
--
| Scientia Claus, Lord Of Lemmings <am...@cornell.edu> |
|"The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its hexagons|
| and whose circumference is inaccessible." -- Jorge Luis Borges |
|"One feels as if one is dissolved and merged into nature." -- Einstein|
Chad Mulligan
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au wrote in message
<7sp9mr$4be$1...@wombat.cs.monash.edu.au>...
>K. Bjarnason <kel...@bc.sympatico.no.spam.ca> writes:
>>In article <slrn7ut6dv...@interport.net>, fl...@interport.net
>>says...
>
>>> When it comes to open source software, consider "Beta" to be "Release".
>>> You'll find that the software is of similar or better quality to what
>>> you're used to under Windows.
>
>>If it's release, it's release. If it's beta, it's beta. Labelling it
>>"Beta" and calling it "release" must be Linuxspeak.
>
>In my experience, it's not the Linux stuff that is mislabelled. Something
>in "Beta" is supposed to work; However, it hasn't been used by millions
>of people in hundreds of thousands of configurations yet, so no promises
>are made. Release is supposed to work, period.
>
No, Beta is the stage that the form and function are present but untested.
The purpose of Beta is to validate both the form and function in live
environments.
>That's how it works in Linux stuff --- if you get something that's labelled
>beta, it usually works. If it doesn't, it usually gets fixed within a day
>of sending in a detailed bug report.
>
That would be the results of testing, features that don't fill the design
spec. should be weeded at this time as well.
>In the Windows world, it seems that "beta" means "it compiles, and didn't
>immediately crash when we tried to start it" and "release" means "this
>should work, more or less, most of the time. If it doesn't for you, wait
>for the next update".
>
Nope. Do you recall your recent post in COLA about inflammatory remarks.
Lead by example. Since beta is untested it should not be expected to work.
That it often does is sometimes a benefit, but high hopes are often dashed.
>This leads to all sorts of misconceptions along the lines of "In Linux,
>everything is in beta, nothing finished", which can be a really scary
>idea if you apply the Windows world's definition of "beta". Fortunately,
>that is not the appropriate definition to apply, so linux is, in fact,
>remarkably stable despite being "beta".
>
Can you point to product and call it complete? George Lucas said, "No film
is ever complete, only abandoned." Software, writing, film making and music
are art forms that that quote applies too, a good example is Apple. They
did actually lead in the ease of use arena but have now sat on their initial
success so long that progress stopped. Lotus development, Novell, Netscape
and some other software companies are also guilty of this.
>Bernie
>
>--
>Some of the world's greatest feats were accomplished
> by people not smart enough to know they were impossible.
>Doug Larson
"The difficult we do right away, the impossible takes a little longer."
Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, Lockheed "Skunk Works" Director circa 1958
regarding the SR71 project.
Chad Mulligan
void wrote in message ...
wrote:
>>
>>"void" <fl...@interport.net> wrote in message
>>news:slrn7uvqpj...@interport.net...
>>> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:47:51 -0500, Chad Myers <cmy...@austin.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>
>I just thought it was funny for an NT advocate to praise it for being
>multi-platform. It would be more accurate to call it "less
>platform-challenged than previous versions of Windows".
>
Why not they run on six or seven different platforms.
>>Not to mention that Unix is not one single entity and that the types of
>>Unixes that would run on a large scale like that probably only support
>>a few platforms as well.
>
>Solaris runs on everything from low-end (x86) to high midrange (UE6500).
>I'm not sure that the UE10K doesn't run a specially hacked version, so
>I'm leaving it out.
>
Should different variations of SPARC or x86 really be considered different
platforms?
>NetBSD runs on just about anything. Realistically, it's probably good
>for only lower midrange (uniprocessor RISC boxes) to ultra-low-end
>(there's a Japanese digital camera that runs it).
>
Yup, there's probably a digital watch that runs it too. Of course watches
nowadays constitute more hardware than the old Sun 380's anyway.
>I know of no single unix that scales all the way down or up, though some
>Linux advocate will probably claim Linux, because of the Beowulf
>clusters. I don't say Linux or any of the BSDs because neither has SMP
>support comparable to that of Solaris.
>
Query, doesn't AIX and Ultrix have the same SMP support or better. Ultrix
should due to DEC's early support of cluster designs. Motorola has a decent
System V with SMP support seven years ago too. On boxes built around
multiple 68000's.
>>> Does NT on Alpha even have a future now that Compaq seems to have
>>abandoned
>>> it?
>>
>>Does it matter? The fact is, is that NT IS capable of running on many
>>platforms, it just
>>isn't doing so right now because x86 is the only really super-profitable
>>platform right
>>now. Corporations still have to make money, you know. Not everyone
>>lives in
>>Dream world with linux.
>
>You have got to be kidding.
>
>Potential scalability doesn't help anyone handle real loads.
>
Agreed, but this is the Linux communities rose colored looking glass.
>>> I can administer[0] servers a continent away over a low-bandwidth,
>>> high-latency connection, because it's all text. Can you do that with
>>> PCAnywhere?
>>
>>Don't know about PCAnywhere, but I can with Remotely Possible/32
>>as well as the built in tools that come with NT. Just because it
>>doesn't
>>have telnet, doesn't mean it can't be remote admin'd.
>
>I didn't say that NT can't be remotely administered. But I don't know
>of any way to remotely administer it over a slow, high-latency link,
>because all the solutions I know are based on remoting the desktop, like
>PCAnywhere. What does Remotely Possible/32 do? I know NT has telnet
>daemons available, but I'm under the impression that a command-line user
>under NT is a second-class user and loses access to a lot of functionality.
>Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, telnet has been obsoleted by ssh.
>
The MMC doesn't replicate the desktop it runs locally a console file on the
remote system. Rconsole and Telnet allow command line access. Can't get that
RAID to insert the new drive by itself though, copies of a tape juke box
might remedy that though. ;-D
>>> The implication being that NT4 is more mature and robust than unix?
>>> Give me a break!
>>
>><sigh> Do you even read what I type or are you just so blinded by FUD
>>that you can't see anything? I said that Win2K was more mature and
>>robust than NT 4. Although, I do admit that the "let alone Unix" was a
>>bit misleading.
>
>My point.
>
>>Perhaps I should've said that Win2K will be more robust than Unix.
>
Possibly more than some but less than others.
>Again, you have got to be kidding. Unix isn't as robust as some
>mainframe OSs, but it does pretty well. I think that MS has the raw
>brain-power but not the will to create an OS as robust as the better
>unixes. Writing reliable code takes the exact sort of discipline that
>they don't have.
>
All UNIX aren't created equal, they all have strong points and weak points,
appying a single attribute to them all is incorrect.
>>Win2K will be an enterprise-wide Sys Admin's wet dream. It will
>>allow him to deploy applications automatically enterprise wide
>>with ease, it will give him powerful tools for admining all his servers
>>from one location, all with a unified X.500 and LDAP compliant
>>Directory service, ladda ladda ladda, I could go on and on.
>
>Why don't you just post the marketing brochure's URL and we can read it
>ourselves?
>
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/professional/
>>Sure, most of this stuff can be achieved with using a combination
>>of different unix variants and 3rd party solutions, but then all
>>you're doing is adding to the total cost of ownship to prove a
>>silly point.
>
>You call it proving a silly point, I call it designing a
>high-performance, scalable, secure, maintainable network. It requires
>some creativity and thought, but it gets results.
Chad Mulligan
void wrote in message ...
><cmul...@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
>>
>>Can you point to product and call it complete? George Lucas said, "No
film
>>is ever complete, only abandoned."
>
>
No, G Lucas says it on my Special Edition of Star Wars. ( He probably
borrowed it )
>In the FreeBSD development project, a beta period is the time when a
>version of the OS is pushed towards releasable quality. That means a
>feature freeze, and pressure put onto all developers to make their areas
>of responsibility reliable, robust and usable by the general FreeBSD
>public, if they aren't already.
>
As i said form and function are complete and need validation.
>The STABLE branch should always be release quality, and with few
>exceptions and far between, it is. The CURRENT (development) branch
>is sometimes production-quality, sometimes not, and which it is may vary
>depending what hardware you want to use with it. Every once in a while,
>CURRENT goes through a beta period and comes out the other side as the
>new STABLE.
>
If I'm understanding your model here:
NT + current Service Pack would be Stable branch and;
NT + current Service Pack + hotfixes would be current branch.
MS states that difference between hotfixes and SP fixes is the completion of
regression testing is required for SP inclusion.
Stuart Fox
Thanks
Stu
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
>In article <slrn7ut6dv...@interport.net>, fl...@interport.net
>says...
>> When it comes to open source software, consider "Beta" to be "Release".
>> You'll find that the software is of similar or better quality to what
>> you're used to under Windows.
>If it's release, it's release. If it's beta, it's beta. Labelling it
>"Beta" and calling it "release" must be Linuxspeak.
In my experience, it's not the Linux stuff that is mislabelled. Something
in "Beta" is supposed to work; However, it hasn't been used by millions
of people in hundreds of thousands of configurations yet, so no promises
are made. Release is supposed to work, period.
That's how it works in Linux stuff --- if you get something that's labelled
beta, it usually works. If it doesn't, it usually gets fixed within a day
of sending in a detailed bug report.
In the Windows world, it seems that "beta" means "it compiles, and didn't
immediately crash when we tried to start it" and "release" means "this
should work, more or less, most of the time. If it doesn't for you, wait
for the next update".
This leads to all sorts of misconceptions along the lines of "In Linux,
everything is in beta, nothing finished", which can be a really scary
idea if you apply the Windows world's definition of "beta". Fortunately,
that is not the appropriate definition to apply, so linux is, in fact,
remarkably stable despite being "beta".
Bernie
void
>
>"void" <fl...@interport.net> wrote in message
>news:slrn7uvqpj...@interport.net...
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:47:51 -0500, Chad Myers <cmy...@austin.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>> unix runs on more different kinds of hardware than every other OS in
>> history, combined.
>
>Did I say lead the industry? I just said that NT is multi-platform and
>scalable. This is a fact. Why do you make up things to argue about?
>Because you got confronted with facts, you must make up things
>so that you sound intelligent?
I just thought it was funny for an NT advocate to praise it for being
multi-platform. It would be more accurate to call it "less
platform-challenged than previous versions of Windows".
>Not to mention that Unix is not one single entity and that the types of
>Unixes that would run on a large scale like that probably only support
>a few platforms as well.
Solaris runs on everything from low-end (x86) to high midrange (UE6500).
I'm not sure that the UE10K doesn't run a specially hacked version, so
I'm leaving it out.
NetBSD runs on just about anything. Realistically, it's probably good
for only lower midrange (uniprocessor RISC boxes) to ultra-low-end
(there's a Japanese digital camera that runs it).
I know of no single unix that scales all the way down or up, though some
Linux advocate will probably claim Linux, because of the Beowulf
clusters. I don't say Linux or any of the BSDs because neither has SMP
support comparable to that of Solaris.
>> Does NT on Alpha even have a future now that Compaq seems to have
>abandoned
>> it?
>
>Does it matter? The fact is, is that NT IS capable of running on many
>platforms, it just
>isn't doing so right now because x86 is the only really super-profitable
>platform right
>now. Corporations still have to make money, you know. Not everyone
>lives in
>Dream world with linux.
You have got to be kidding.
Potential scalability doesn't help anyone handle real loads.
>> I can administer[0] servers a continent away over a low-bandwidth,
>> high-latency connection, because it's all text. Can you do that with
>> PCAnywhere?
>
>Don't know about PCAnywhere, but I can with Remotely Possible/32
>as well as the built in tools that come with NT. Just because it
>doesn't
>have telnet, doesn't mean it can't be remote admin'd.
I didn't say that NT can't be remotely administered. But I don't know
of any way to remotely administer it over a slow, high-latency link,
because all the solutions I know are based on remoting the desktop, like
PCAnywhere. What does Remotely Possible/32 do? I know NT has telnet
daemons available, but I'm under the impression that a command-line user
under NT is a second-class user and loses access to a lot of functionality.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, telnet has been obsoleted by ssh.
>> The implication being that NT4 is more mature and robust than unix?
>> Give me a break!
>
><sigh> Do you even read what I type or are you just so blinded by FUD
>that you can't see anything? I said that Win2K was more mature and
>robust than NT 4. Although, I do admit that the "let alone Unix" was a
>bit misleading.
My point.
>Perhaps I should've said that Win2K will be more robust than Unix.
Again, you have got to be kidding. Unix isn't as robust as some
mainframe OSs, but it does pretty well. I think that MS has the raw
brain-power but not the will to create an OS as robust as the better
unixes. Writing reliable code takes the exact sort of discipline that
they don't have.
>Win2K will be an enterprise-wide Sys Admin's wet dream. It will
>allow him to deploy applications automatically enterprise wide
>with ease, it will give him powerful tools for admining all his servers
>from one location, all with a unified X.500 and LDAP compliant
>Directory service, ladda ladda ladda, I could go on and on.
Why don't you just post the marketing brochure's URL and we can read it
ourselves?
>Sure, most of this stuff can be achieved with using a combination
>of different unix variants and 3rd party solutions, but then all
>you're doing is adding to the total cost of ownship to prove a
>silly point.
You call it proving a silly point, I call it designing a
high-performance, scalable, secure, maintainable network. It requires
some creativity and thought, but it gets results.
--
void
<cmul...@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
>
>Can you point to product and call it complete? George Lucas said, "No film
>is ever complete, only abandoned."
It's works of art, not films, and it's attributed to Anatole France.
In the FreeBSD development project, a beta period is the time when a
version of the OS is pushed towards releasable quality. That means a
feature freeze, and pressure put onto all developers to make their areas
of responsibility reliable, robust and usable by the general FreeBSD
public, if they aren't already.
The STABLE branch should always be release quality, and with few
exceptions and far between, it is. The CURRENT (development) branch
is sometimes production-quality, sometimes not, and which it is may vary
depending what hardware you want to use with it. Every once in a while,
CURRENT goes through a beta period and comes out the other side as the
new STABLE.
--
void
<cmul...@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
>
>void wrote in message ...
>>On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:29:14 -0500, Chad Myers <cmy...@austin.rr.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>multi-platform. It would be more accurate to call it "less
>>platform-challenged than previous versions of Windows".
>
>Why not they run on six or seven different platforms.
Intel, Intel, Intel ... I can't think of the other three or four.
WinCE isn't NT.
>>Solaris runs on everything from low-end (x86) to high midrange (UE6500).
>>I'm not sure that the UE10K doesn't run a specially hacked version, so
>>I'm leaving it out.
>
>Should different variations of SPARC or x86 really be considered different
>platforms?
If you're looking for scalability, then the vendor is less important
than the range. x86 scales from low-end to low-midrange, SPARC doesn't
compete well on the low end but scales much higher.
Running on lots of different CPUs is nice, but I have never worked in a
shop that ran NT on Alpha or Solaris on x86.
>>I know of no single unix that scales all the way down or up, though some
>>Linux advocate will probably claim Linux, because of the Beowulf
>>clusters. I don't say Linux or any of the BSDs because neither has SMP
>>support comparable to that of Solaris.
>
>Query, doesn't AIX and Ultrix have the same SMP support or better. Ultrix
>should due to DEC's early support of cluster designs. Motorola has a decent
>System V with SMP support seven years ago too. On boxes built around
>multiple 68000's.
SMP and good SMP aren't the same. I know AIX has good SMP support, I
don't know about Ultrix but it would surprise me. Of Motorola's System
V implementation I know nothing at all.
>>>Does it matter? The fact is, is that NT IS capable of running on many
>>>platforms, it just
>>>isn't doing so right now because x86 is the only really super-profitable
>>>platform right
>>>now. Corporations still have to make money, you know. Not everyone
>>>lives in
>>>Dream world with linux.
>>
>>You have got to be kidding.
>>
>>Potential scalability doesn't help anyone handle real loads.
>
>Agreed, but this is the Linux communities rose colored looking glass.
Huh?
Remember ... I hate having my points responded to with "oh yeah well a
Linux advocate said something stupid once". I don't bother you about
stupid things that Windows advocates say to me. Give me the same
courtesy.
If I keep having to say it, I might as well give in and put the above in
my .sig.
>>I didn't say that NT can't be remotely administered. But I don't know
>>of any way to remotely administer it over a slow, high-latency link,
>>because all the solutions I know are based on remoting the desktop, like
>>PCAnywhere. What does Remotely Possible/32 do? I know NT has telnet
>>daemons available, but I'm under the impression that a command-line user
>>under NT is a second-class user and loses access to a lot of functionality.
>>Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, telnet has been obsoleted by ssh.
>
>The MMC doesn't replicate the desktop it runs locally a console file on the
>remote system. Rconsole and Telnet allow command line access. Can't get that
>RAID to insert the new drive by itself though, copies of a tape juke box
>might remedy that though. ;-D
How does the MMC communicate with the system being worked on? Is it as
powerful as sitting at the console? Is it secure? How's the bandwidth
compared to that used by a CLI? How does it feel to use the MMC when the
network is slow and has high latency?
These questions aren't arbitrary, they're the first things I'd ask
myself if I were evaluating the product in question.
>>Again, you have got to be kidding. Unix isn't as robust as some
>>mainframe OSs, but it does pretty well. I think that MS has the raw
>>brain-power but not the will to create an OS as robust as the better
>>unixes. Writing reliable code takes the exact sort of discipline that
>>they don't have.
>
>All UNIX aren't created equal, they all have strong points and weak points,
>appying a single attribute to them all is incorrect.
I said "the better unixes", as opposed to, say, SCO.
void
<cmul...@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
>
>If I'm understanding your model here:
>
>NT + current Service Pack would be Stable branch and;
>NT + current Service Pack + hotfixes would be current branch.
>
>MS states that difference between hotfixes and SP fixes is the completion of
>regression testing is required for SP inclusion.
No. CURRENT is where big changes like the change of executable file
format from a.out to ELF, the introduction of the CAM SCSI subsystem,
the new bus/driver architecture, and the introduction of SMP happened.
The STABLE branch gets some functionality backported from CURRENT, and
every so often it goes through its own beta period and is released. CDs
are cut then, and the minor version number is bumped up. That's the
equivalent of a Service Pack release, whereas the STABLE branch itself
is the equivalent of current SP plus hotfixes.
CURRENT is the next version of the OS, not the current version with
bugfixes.
Chad Mulligan
void wrote in message ...
><cmul...@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
>>
>>void wrote in message ...
>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:29:14 -0500, Chad Myers <cmy...@austin.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>multi-platform. It would be more accurate to call it "less
>>>platform-challenged than previous versions of Windows".
>>
>>Why not they run on six or seven different platforms.
>
>
i486DX
Pentium
PentiumII
PentiumIII
Celeron
AMD
CYRIX
ALPHA
PPC
MIPS
>WinCE isn't NT.
>
Poor choice of name that one. Marketing F**d it up royal.
>>>Solaris runs on everything from low-end (x86) to high midrange (UE6500).
>>>I'm not sure that the UE10K doesn't run a specially hacked version, so
>>>I'm leaving it out.
>>
>>Should different variations of SPARC or x86 really be considered different
>>platforms?
>
>If you're looking for scalability, then the vendor is less important
>than the range. x86 scales from low-end to low-midrange, SPARC doesn't
>compete well on the low end but scales much higher.
>
>Running on lots of different CPUs is nice, but I have never worked in a
>shop that ran NT on Alpha or Solaris on x86.
>
My first NT server install was on a demo Alpha that DEC had given us then
forgot about, helped the ROI a bit that did. It was an Alpha PC 150 w/ 32MB
ram and an Adaptec EISA SCSI that got populated with failed drives from my
MicroVAX's and UNIX boxes. Ran really well too.
>>>I know of no single unix that scales all the way down or up, though some
>>>Linux advocate will probably claim Linux, because of the Beowulf
>>>clusters. I don't say Linux or any of the BSDs because neither has SMP
>>>support comparable to that of Solaris.
>>
>>Query, doesn't AIX and Ultrix have the same SMP support or better. Ultrix
>>should due to DEC's early support of cluster designs. Motorola has a dece
nt
>>System V with SMP support seven years ago too. On boxes built around
>>multiple 68000's.
>
>SMP and good SMP aren't the same. I know AIX has good SMP support, I
>don't know about Ultrix but it would surprise me. Of Motorola's System
>V implementation I know nothing at all.
>
HP 3000's are SMP too aren't they, I haven't kept up with anything but
9000's from them for a couple of years, they're the old Apollo technology
you know.
>>>>Does it matter? The fact is, is that NT IS capable of running on many
>>>>platforms, it just
>>>>isn't doing so right now because x86 is the only really super-profitable
>>>>platform right
>>>>now. Corporations still have to make money, you know. Not everyone
>>>>lives in
>>>>Dream world with linux.
>>>
>>>You have got to be kidding.
>>>
>>>Potential scalability doesn't help anyone handle real loads.
>>
>>Agreed, but this is the Linux communities rose colored looking glass.
>
>Huh?
>
>Remember ... I hate having my points responded to with "oh yeah well a
>Linux advocate said something stupid once". I don't bother you about
>stupid things that Windows advocates say to me. Give me the same
>courtesy.
>
I know that, I was teasing a bit. The Linux guys think that they can scale
to 8,000,000 Alphas because their platform compiled on one. It's one of
their annoying traits.
>If I keep having to say it, I might as well give in and put the above in
>my .sig.
>
>>>I didn't say that NT can't be remotely administered. But I don't know
>>>of any way to remotely administer it over a slow, high-latency link,
>>>because all the solutions I know are based on remoting the desktop, like
>>>PCAnywhere. What does Remotely Possible/32 do? I know NT has telnet
>>>daemons available, but I'm under the impression that a command-line user
>>>under NT is a second-class user and loses access to a lot of
functionality.
>>>Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, telnet has been obsoleted by ssh.
>>
>>The MMC doesn't replicate the desktop it runs locally a console file on
the
>>remote system. Rconsole and Telnet allow command line access. Can't get
that
>>RAID to insert the new drive by itself though, copies of a tape juke box
>>might remedy that though. ;-D
>
>How does the MMC communicate with the system being worked on? Is it as
>powerful as sitting at the console? Is it secure? How's the bandwidth
>compared to that used by a CLI? How does it feel to use the MMC when the
>network is slow and has high latency?
>
Pretty much, I'm still at the lower end of the learning curve, but the
functionality, as implemented on NT4, all there with beaucoup flexibility
because you can create and add components using COM and COM+. BTW, it is
WBEM (Web Based Enterprise Management as defined by the DMTF, Desktop
Management Task Force) compliant. It isn't HTML based despite it's name but
effective. Since, on Windows it's COM based it gaines the speed and security
of COM objects, long term plans are for cross platform support as required
in the standard. That could be very interesting. As usual the CLI is still
there, and pretty effective contrary to some opinion. You UNIX guys should
appreciate that ksh, and bash are supported now as is ssh, NIS, albeit from
different developers. VNC is a cool tool too, though in it's current version
slow and weak on security, though I've been told that it'll run ssh.
>These questions aren't arbitrary, they're the first things I'd ask
>myself if I were evaluating the product in question.
>
I understand, the form and function thing. Will it do what I want it to,
quickly, effectively, reliably and easily? What else do you look for in
software or hardware?
>>>Again, you have got to be kidding. Unix isn't as robust as some
>>>mainframe OSs, but it does pretty well. I think that MS has the raw
>>>brain-power but not the will to create an OS as robust as the better
>>>unixes. Writing reliable code takes the exact sort of discipline that
>>>they don't have.
>>
>>All UNIX aren't created equal, they all have strong points and weak
points,
>>appying a single attribute to them all is incorrect.
>
>I said "the better unixes", as opposed to, say, SCO.
>
SCO's not that bad. I think they jumped the gun with their SVR4 and total
GUI package on 386 technology though. That hurt them in the market.
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
> "Darren Meyer [technology]" <d...@think4d.com> wrote in message
> news:37EFCDAD...@think4d.com...
> >
> >
> > I belive the question being asked was not "if they could", but rather
> > "do they?" In other words, how many free-hosting systems choose NT to
> > run their services? Even MS uses Solaris (another UNIX cousin) to run
> > HotMail, because NT couldn't hold up to the task.
> >
> > - Darren
> > [The opinions expressed are those of the symbiote in my brain.]
>
> Don't you have to have a license to be that ignorant?
>
> Did you just get out of high school? Have you ever been in the real
> world?
> Have you ever had to deploy a large-scale, heavily used web site?
>
> If so, then you know that you can't just decide on day that you're going
> to up and switch platforms and it magically happens.
>
> The fact is, Microsoft inherited this Solaris monstrosety from the
> original
> HotMail owners and they haven't yet had the chance to migrate it to
> anything else. They're too busy keeping what they have running.
>
Chad, what a wonderfull rewrite of history your posting contains just
enough truth to be believable while hiding what really happened.
Hotmail when it was purchased by MS ran on Solaris, Hotmail
runs on Solaris today with a bit of NT to make it insecure and
unreliable. Ego MS havn't had a chance to move Hotmail from
Solaris to NT.
Wrong, they tried and failed and the NT the bits arround the edges that
cause the breakdowns and security violations are the remains of that
failed attempt.
MS pumped loads of engineers, hardware and resources into moving
Hotmail onto NT, it failed so they quietly went back to buying Sun's
and hiring Solaris engineers.
BTW this sorry saga has been covered many times before.
>
> They have stated that when Win2K is released, they will roll out Hotmail
> on Windows2000/IIS 5.
>
Since Hotmail is mainly a MAILER why would W2K and IIS 5 be of any
interest. Hint IIS is a web server, while Hotmail has a big web site its
primary function is to provide email accounts.
So wow, MS are going to upgrade the NT WEB servers running IIS
to W2K. When are they going to "upgrade" Hotmails email, directory
and subscription systems that run on Suns running Solaris.
>
> Do you even read facts or do you just spout out the dribble that you
> have
> heard from other ignorant posters on the /. forum?
>
Great, this is from the person who though that IIS is a mail server.
Please please try to be a bit better informed before posting you
are in danger of decending to the same level as the other Chad.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Enterprise IT Architect
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
> "Darren Meyer [technology]" <d...@think4d.com> wrote in message
> news:37F000C8...@think4d.com...
> > Since I cannot find the original press release I was shown, perhaps I
> > had a hoax pulled on me. The point I was attempting to make in my
> > original post stands, however -- I did not intend to bash NT in any
> way,
> > but rather point out that even MS acknowleges (if you talk to
> > non-marketing folk) that NT was never designed for continual
> > high-capacity serving. It has been patched to support it, but
> generally
> > UNIX backends for such applications are superior.
>
> Hmm..see, I would disagree. NT has the capability of being a
> heavy-duty backend in all but the largest multi-terabyte (or whatever)
> solutions. Check out terraserver.microsoft.com and the Tech
> behind the site http://terraserver.microsoft.com/terra_tech.asp
> NT Enterprise Edition CAN server some of the largest sites, and
> also handle the backend servers. Also note, that it's running on
> Alpha, a tribute to NT's multi-platform scalability.
>
Chad take my advice stop posting rubbish. The Terra server
is an image database. As any IT literate person, image databases
are hardly what you can describe as heavy duty systems.
You need a relatively simple index to a bunch of large files or
BLOB's in a DBMS. This isn't a high transaction system.
The index points to the image and after that its just block
transfer of data very like a large FTP server and we all know
you don't need big systems to handle large amounts of FTP
traffic.
Now if it was doing complex joins or full table scans on its
data base (which it isn't) it might be more impressive, but
it isn't.
If this wasn't enough Terraserver was actually a PR dissaster
as far as MS was concerned because it simply could not
handle the traffic and fell over or timed out. This was covered
in the news at the time. Because of that people lost
interest and its now fine but it proved that NT could not
even function sucesfully as a glorified FTP server.
If the best you can come up with is the Terraserver then
I feel sorry for you, this isn't even poor advocacy its
terrible advocacy on your part.
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
> void wrote in message ...
> >On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:45:48 -0700, Chad Mulligan
> ><cmul...@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>void wrote in message ...
> >>>On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:29:14 -0500, Chad Myers <cmy...@austin.rr.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I just thought it was funny for an NT advocate to praise it for being
> >>>multi-platform. It would be more accurate to call it "less
> >>>platform-challenged than previous versions of Windows".
> >>
> >>Why not they run on six or seven different platforms.
> >
> >Intel, Intel, Intel ... I can't think of the other three or four.
> >
>
> i486DX
> Pentium
> PentiumII
> PentiumIII
> Celeron
> AMD
> CYRIX
> ALPHA
> PPC
> MIPS
Chad, you can't even get a simple list right.
Firstly NT runs on one architecture x86 and did run
on PPC, MIPS and has just been dropped on Alpha.
So in reality NT runs on one architecture x86.
Secondly if you start counting indevidual CPUS that
implement the same x86 architecture then so can
anyone else.
Solaris
486DX
Pentium
PentiumII
PentiumIII
Celeron
AMD
PPC
SPARC (Fujitsu)
SPARC (Ross)
SuperSPARC
HyperSPARC
HAL
SPARClite
UltraSPARC I
UltraSPARC II
UltraSPARC IIi
Of course this is stupid as SPARC runs on two
architectures SPARC and x86 while NT runs
on x86 and ALPHA and the ALPHA port
has just be dropped by Compaq and MS.
> HP 3000's are SMP too aren't they, I haven't kept up with anything but
> 9000's from them for a couple of years, they're the old Apollo technology
> you know.
>
No the HP 3000's have nothing to do with Apollo they run MPE HP's own
server OS.
Kevin Hayes
> source claimed these things, and I will admit you're right, until then
> the facts state that MS did/has not attempted to migrate to NT yet.
Oh please - the Hotmail team leader would not be employed for very long if
he provided evidence. It can neither be disproven or proven, but it can be
believed based on common sense.
Here's a task for you, tell us of a large scale site that handles the
amount of traffic of Hotmail that does use WindowsNT - don't forget to give
us evidence. I'm not saying they don't exist - but it will make the Hotmail
argument a moot point.
Kevin
Kevin Hayes
Chad Mulligan wrote:
> i486DX
> Pentium
> PentiumII
> PentiumIII
> Celeron
> AMD
> CYRIX
> ALPHA
> PPC
> MIPS
You have got to be joking. The first seven are all the same platform. They're
all in the x86 or x86 clone family. A platform is more than which Intel or Intel
compatible processor. PowerPC NT is not longer developed or supported (can you
even buy it anymore). Compaq has given up on NT on Alpha - can't comment on
MIPS.
Even Windows software developers don't understand the multiplatform concept.
They claim they have multiplatform support - they really mean "Which version of
Windows?"
There's more to the computer industry than Windows - accept it.
Kevin.
Darren Meyer [technology]
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Darren Meyer [technology]" <d...@think4d.com> wrote in message
> news:37F000C8...@think4d.com...
> > Since I cannot find the original press release I was shown, perhaps I
> > had a hoax pulled on me. The point I was attempting to make in my
> > original post stands, however -- I did not intend to bash NT in any
> way,
> > but rather point out that even MS acknowleges (if you talk to
> > non-marketing folk) that NT was never designed for continual
> > high-capacity serving. It has been patched to support it, but
> generally
> > UNIX backends for such applications are superior.
>
> Hmm..see, I would disagree. NT has the capability of being a
> heavy-duty backend in all but the largest multi-terabyte (or whatever)
> solutions. Check out terraserver.microsoft.com and the Tech
> behind the site http://terraserver.microsoft.com/terra_tech.asp
> NT Enterprise Edition CAN server some of the largest sites, and
> also handle the backend servers. Also note, that it's running on
> Alpha, a tribute to NT's multi-platform scalability.
Oh, I agree that it CAN -- in fact, I've set up a couple of massive
mission-critical DB servers based on NT/Oracle. And several on Linux,
and even a couple on OS/2. The point I am making is that, in my
experience, it seems that NT was designed more as a medium-size
file/print/mail server OS than for massive systems. I don't think the
intent was ever to replace extremely large environments, so NT and its
related tools really cater more to small-to-medium environments.
Oh, and I consider 2 platforms to be a step in the right direction, but
not far enough -- when I see NT running on PPC platforms successfully (I
tried the beta of NT for the RS/6000 -- someone obviously didn't know
what they were doing) I will hail NT's platform independance. :)
> The fact is, is that UNIX administrators who have been making
> the big bucks on their UNIX systems (because they're so over
> complicated and difficult to administer -- job security) are
> frightened by the threat of a new kid on the block that is
> easier to administer, has a lower TOC, and doesn't
> require and army to administrate, so they make up lies about
> how it can't scale, or it's just a toy, etc.
Actually, if UNIX environments are installed with care, they can be
easier to administer than NT environments. All our in-place UNIX boxen
are administered via intranet forms and/or Java applets. Lower TCO (TOC
is table of contents, I'll assume a typo :) ) has yet to be conclusively
shown -- and so far, in about 70% of cases I have encountered, a UNIX
system has significantly lower TCO over 3 years than NT.
As far as requiring an army to administrate: one of our customers
(sorry, can't use names.. NDA) has two people whose job is specifically
to make sure each of their roughly 150 NT servers gets rebooted on
schedule, and all services get restarted. The UNIX box they have for an
Oracle server gets routinely restarted only once per year, and that is
typically to upgrade in some way. The Linux box that we installed for
them as a developmental server for their Oracle applications has yet to
be restarted since installation, and has been up for 11 months so far:
the UNIX box and the Linux box are administered by the lead programmer
for their flagship product. That programmer is an MCSE, and he loves
the admin applets.
The only gripe I have with UNIX admin is that easy-to-use frontends to
the admin tools are difficult to come by sometimes.
> When presented with the facts, you can't really argue. NT is already
> there, and Win2K will be a more mature, more robust, easier to
> manage solution than even NT 4.0, let alone Unix.
Easy to use, yes. But stable and efficient for the given hardware? I
think UNIX will still have an edge merely because the need for upgrading
hardware is less than that of migrating to the next version of Win.
> Yes, I HAVE used Win2K and NO it's NOT vaporware, it's real
> and it's here and it it's already in Release Candadite stage. Release
> in October is emminent. (Although, I will admit, Datacenter server
> may not make it until some time in Win2K, but it's a much more
> complex beast).
So have I. I was impressed by much of it, and dissapointed my much of
it. Will I use it in solutions for my company? Not untill there's at
least an SP1 (and there always is), but then, perhaps I will. My view
on the matter of OS choice is this: Linux is great, but it doesn't work
everywhere -- likewise, NT is great (for certain things), but it doesn't
work everywhere. Homogenous environments are dangerous.
> >
> > Perhaps I was mistaken about the HotMail incident.
>
> No problem. Many people have heard the FUD spread
> and want to believe it, but when presented with the facts
> and confronted about the unfounded claims, they realize
> it's just another Linux/Un*x FUD smear.
While I agree there is some misinformation (FUD) that comes from the *UX
side of the canvas, one must remember that those are _individuals_, and
not the community. Linux was created to be a free alternative to UNIX.
Projects are underway to make it a more viable desktop OS. But its
intent was not to screw MS. Most of the community knows this.
- Darren
[these opinions are mine. Pay no attention to the man behind the
curtain.]