Moderate him up, please. Basic strategy and tactics. Do _NOT_ use your oponents choice of weapons or playing field.
Re:But with FUD, it can all turn against us
on
Stopping the FUD
·
· Score: 1
How to do a benchmark. First, examine the strengths and weaknesses of the contenders. Second, devise a benchmark that plays to the strengths of one and the weaknesses of the other. As non-obviously as possible. Third, run the benchmark ostensibly fairly.
Re the Mindcraft benchmarks, it would be interesting to see how NT would fare with 5 processors and 3 network cards.
Threads vs Processes. IMHO it seems like there are *LOTS* more ways to get it wrong with threads. But if nothing goes wrong, threads are faster. IF.
Re:Sympathy and other things ...
on
Stopping the FUD
·
· Score: 1
Seems like chess got a lot more popular after the tantrums of Bobby Fisher.
Calmly, rationally. Boring. Boring. David vs Goliath. Underpenguin vs richest man on earth. Stay tuned to this channel.
There seems to be some confusion between FUD and the BIG LIE. The BIG LIE, particularly if it has some plausible grain of truth, told often and loudly, is very effective. Humor and ridicule are probably the only effective antidotes.
Methinks most of the anti-MS stuff is coming from NT monk^H^H^Hadmins. Linux and *nix users/admins seem more balanced. Anything but Microsoft comes from using Microsoft, not from using alternatives.
Would you trust the rearranging of data on your hard drives to software controlled by the "Church" of Scientology? That is FUD. A bloated defragmenter is a marvelous place to put remotely activatable trojans, etc. Think about it. Do you feel safe with W2K?
The "Linux Revolution" is, I think, a new generation of Unix with the excitement of fresh discovery, a cool mascot, and by fortuitous chance, a useable word play on UNIX(tm).
"Was Ken Thompson engaging in anti-Linux FUD?" No. First, it isn't FUD. No Fear. No Uncertainty. No Doubt. Second, he has his opinions with, I am sure, more than adequate justification. Unix-3 (Linux) after Unix-2 (Berkeley *BSD) after originating Unix-1 as a doable alternative to Multics is just not going to make him say "wow!". Too much been there, done that with maybe a touch of Not Invented Here.
"Or will Linux come to eventually be recognized as a big mediocre mess?" Probably not, but if it is, there is always *BSD, or Linux learns from *BSD, as *BSD will learn a few things from Linux. If the "Linux Revolution" winds up with OpenBSD on every desktop, we have won.
Playing a bit of a semantic game, you _DO_ believe in the "Linux Revolution". The "Linux Revolution" is going from "No Unix" to "We have Unix". Your favorite unix at the moment just happens to be called NetBSD.
Suggestion for posts that are of interest only to masochists and (meta)-moderators. Use something like 3 strikes (3 independent deep six moderations) to effectively kill the post. Shouldn't use moderator points, but should be near unanimous agreement by meta-moderators.
Superficially, I would agree with you, but as shown in the lawsuit Finding of Fact, Microsoft reacts strongly to perceived threats to its position. With a strong BSD waiting in the wings, Linux is a stronger competitor to Microsoft. I don't think I really believe it, but it is interesting to consider the possibility.;)
Due to trademarks and AT&T they cannot *CALL* it UNIX. Remember the "UNIX is a trademark of AT&T" at the bottom of technical papers? I have the impression that BSD Unix has generally been superior to AT&T Unix.
After carefully reading the article (usually I read only the comments), all I can say is wow, well done. This post is to add a small voice that the small number of comments is not an indicator of lack of interest. Any of the inside history of how Un*x has managed to survive and even thrive is, I think, of great interest to us all.
Keyboard input, blame the ap. TIMING of keyboard input, blame the OS. (sarcasm. This is a demonstration of the superiority of threads and VBA. end sarcasm.)
NT requires 486+. Actually, the 75 hours to import a 4 meg db is quite believable. There should be some thingees to turn off that would speed up the process, but I haven't a clue as to where to start looking. The quality of MS trolls seems to be deteriorating.
I don't think running in kernel mode is quite that definitive. For example, the paging software on the Michigan Terminal System ran in user mode, not system mode. I think the definition of OS depends on how you view it, and the boundaries get very fuzzy. XFree86 would be inside the OS for someone who is GUI-centric and outside the OS for someone who is CLI-centric. Another cheap shot. If it was written by the OS group it is part of the OS. If it was written by the Applications group it is not part of the OS. Of course the OS group tries to add user functionality and someone in the applications group thinks (s)he knows more about OS things than the OS group. The preceeding is a disfunctional analysis;)
OS/2 could not provide support for what IBM did not know. When IBM finally did know they put in support. It is almost trivial to change APIs so that they selectively break support for certain applications.
Ah, the magic word. IANAL, but it seems that there is a legal problem with contracts made under duress. If the Disclaimer of Warranty and Limitation of Liability are voided, things get very interesting.
>>No, if they go with Linux it'll be distributed to the US government(/military). The US government and SGI are separate entities, therefore that counts as distribution. The GPL applies, and SGI has to release all its source code patches on request. True, but only to the US government(/military). SGI is under NO obligation to release source or binary to ANYONE else.
But seriously, folks, it's not the booting that takes the time, it is the shutting down. I seem to remember that a default install of Small Business Server would take 30 to minutes to an hour to shut down.
Hard to imagine, but Slashdot is becoming a good NT resource;-) EricTheRed lists a batch file to shut down the pieces of Exchange in the proper order.
Slashdot Mirror
Moderate him up, please.
Basic strategy and tactics. Do _NOT_ use your oponents choice of weapons or playing field.
How to do a benchmark.
First, examine the strengths and weaknesses of the contenders.
Second, devise a benchmark that plays to the strengths of one and the weaknesses of the other. As non-obviously as possible.
Third, run the benchmark ostensibly fairly.
Re the Mindcraft benchmarks, it would be interesting to see how NT would fare with 5 processors and 3 network cards.
Threads vs Processes. IMHO it seems like there are *LOTS* more ways to get it wrong with threads. But if nothing goes wrong, threads are faster. IF.
Seems like chess got a lot more popular after the tantrums of Bobby Fisher.
Calmly, rationally. Boring. Boring.
David vs Goliath. Underpenguin vs richest man on earth. Stay tuned to this channel.
There seems to be some confusion between FUD and the BIG LIE. The BIG LIE, particularly if it has some plausible grain of truth, told often and loudly, is very effective. Humor and ridicule are probably the only effective antidotes.
Methinks most of the anti-MS stuff is coming from NT monk^H^H^Hadmins. Linux and *nix users/admins seem more balanced. Anything but Microsoft comes from using Microsoft, not from using alternatives.
Would you trust the rearranging of data on your hard drives to software controlled by the "Church" of Scientology? That is FUD. A bloated defragmenter is a marvelous place to put remotely activatable trojans, etc. Think about it. Do you feel safe with W2K?
The "Linux Revolution" is, I think, a new generation of Unix with the excitement of fresh discovery, a cool mascot, and by fortuitous chance, a useable word play on UNIX(tm).
"Was Ken Thompson engaging in anti-Linux FUD?" No. First, it isn't FUD. No Fear. No Uncertainty. No Doubt. Second, he has his opinions with, I am sure, more than adequate justification. Unix-3 (Linux) after Unix-2 (Berkeley *BSD) after originating Unix-1 as a doable alternative to Multics is just not going to make him say "wow!". Too much been there, done that with maybe a touch of Not Invented Here.
"Or will Linux come to eventually be recognized as a big mediocre mess?" Probably not, but if it is, there is always *BSD, or Linux learns from *BSD, as *BSD will learn a few things from Linux. If the "Linux Revolution" winds up with OpenBSD on every desktop, we have won.
Playing a bit of a semantic game, you _DO_ believe in the "Linux Revolution". The "Linux Revolution" is going from "No Unix" to "We have Unix". Your favorite unix at the moment just happens to be called NetBSD.
Thanks, you just put it into perspective.
Thanks, you just made my day.
Subject: Deep Six (Score: -6)
got changed to (Score:1)
This time I'll try preview first.
Suggestion for posts that are of interest only to masochists and (meta)-moderators. Use something like 3 strikes (3 independent deep six moderations) to effectively kill the post. Shouldn't use moderator points, but should be near unanimous agreement by meta-moderators.
Superficially, I would agree with you, but as shown in the lawsuit Finding of Fact, Microsoft reacts strongly to perceived threats to its position. With a strong BSD waiting in the wings, Linux is a stronger competitor to Microsoft. I don't think I really believe it, but it is interesting to consider the possibility. ;)
Due to trademarks and AT&T they cannot *CALL* it UNIX.
Remember the "UNIX is a trademark of AT&T" at the bottom of technical papers? I have the impression that BSD Unix has generally been superior to AT&T Unix.
Microsoft trolls, hoping to sow dissention.
Actually, I think Microsoft fears *BSD even more than Linux.
Simultaneously.
Also, it is much easier to complicate than to simplify.
After carefully reading the article (usually I read only the comments), all I can say is wow, well done. This post is to add a small voice that the small number of comments is not an indicator of lack of interest. Any of the inside history of how Un*x has managed to survive and even thrive is, I think, of great interest to us all.
Most of us would rather not be spammed or the target of email bombing. Also the opinions expressed are private and not those of our employers.
Keyboard input, blame the ap.
TIMING of keyboard input, blame the OS.
(sarcasm. This is a demonstration of the superiority of threads and VBA. end sarcasm.)
NT requires 486+.
Actually, the 75 hours to import a 4 meg db is quite believable. There should be some thingees to turn off that would speed up the process, but I haven't a clue as to where to start looking.
The quality of MS trolls seems to be deteriorating.
If I've got the html right.
The Last Dinosaur and the Tarpits of Doom
I don't think running in kernel mode is quite that definitive. For example, the paging software on the Michigan Terminal System ran in user mode, not system mode. ;)
I think the definition of OS depends on how you view it, and the boundaries get very fuzzy. XFree86 would be inside the OS for someone who is GUI-centric and outside the OS for someone who is CLI-centric.
Another cheap shot. If it was written by the OS group it is part of the OS. If it was written by the Applications group it is not part of the OS. Of course the OS group tries to add user functionality and someone in the applications group thinks (s)he knows more about OS things than the OS group. The preceeding is a disfunctional analysis
OS/2 could not provide support for what IBM did not know. When IBM finally did know they put in support.
It is almost trivial to change APIs so that they selectively break support for certain applications.
Ah, the magic word. IANAL, but it seems that there is a legal problem with contracts made under duress. If the Disclaimer of Warranty and Limitation of Liability are voided, things get very interesting.
Except it doesn't STAY screwed up. All things considered, they are doing a fantastic job IMNSHO.
>>No, if they go with Linux it'll be distributed to the US government(/military). The US government and SGI are separate entities, therefore that counts as distribution. The GPL applies, and SGI has to release all its source code patches on request.
True, but only to the US government(/military). SGI is under NO obligation to release source or binary to ANYONE else.
It's Microsoft, laugh.
;-) EricTheRed lists a batch file to shut down the pieces of Exchange in the proper order.
But seriously, folks, it's not the booting that takes the time, it is the shutting down. I seem to remember that a default install of Small Business Server would take 30 to minutes to an hour to shut down.
Hard to imagine, but Slashdot is becoming a good NT resource
NT does. Open up Control Panel and there it is.