Does this mean more moderation? Probably; maybe even banning the IPs of some of the worse offenders, or some other form of punishment. We need to tell the trolls and the flamers that we don't want them because they're effectively ruining it for everyone.
But what gets classed as a flame or troll? When I've posted messages either a) pointing out mistakes in knee-jerk anti-Microsoft reactions or b) pointing out that my NT web box has sat up for over a year, without a reboot, some little Linux zealot marks it as a troll, whereas I consider it a factual statement. It's not like I'm even a Microsoft only junkie, we're running Linux for some stuff at work, even Sun boxes (although Netscape web server code bites in my opinion).
If you want an idea of Godfrey's general net attitude, take a look on uk.net where's he's posted (and cross posted to news.admin.net-abuse.*) a bunch of self promoting, bloated, "I win", "I'm a hero" articles, then ran, refusing to dicuss them at all.
This of course is *my* opinion, so sue me Dr. Buttmunch if you don't like it.
It's not the OS, it's the software. The Windows version doesn't log CPU time really, it takes the time when the first block was downloaded to when it's complete. If you're using your PC, and Seti isn't processing it still logs this as CPU time. Bit crap that:)
Re:One thing is very important though...
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Or are you just ignoring the currently running IIS system?
It's not as if I'm anti-Unix or anti-Apache, but I am anti-no-basis-slagging-and-lets-not-listen-to-anyo ne-elses-opinion-and-complain-Microsoft- doesn't-listen-to-us.
1) I'm building a Microsoft-centric solution. Once you start building an ASP-based solution, you're stuck. You have nowhere else to turn. The cost of converting to Perl or JavaScript is just too high. You've walled yourself into a proprietary solution. OK, first off, there's nothing to stop you writing Javascript or Perl ASP, IIS is flexible enough to allow you to slot in any ECMCA (never can remember the acyronm, but you know what I mean!) language. So take your pick, if you pick VB script it's your own damned fault. 2) It's what I know. Microsoft makes a lot of money on the database server and workgroup server market, because "any idiot can use it". What are you basing "any idiot can use it" on? Because it has a GUI interface? You try configuring SQL 6.5, not the easiest thing in the world when you get down to the nitty gritty. SQL 7.0 is beautiful, self optimisation is a wonderful implentation. I've used Netscape, Apache and IIS for hosting, and came to the following conclusion 1) Netscape sucks. Simple as that. Anything that needed restarting once a day was too unreliable to use. And this was under Irix, we're not talking the NT version here. 2) Apache is cute. But thats it, cute. It's handy for running a server throwing up static pages, and for creating lots of little web sites with their own IP addresses. 3) IIS makes it so smooth in integrate databases, I'm not just talking SQL or Access here. I've got a site internally that queries an AS/400. ASP gives me the flexibility for what I want, along with access to Perl should I need it, and the option of standard CGI and ISAPI DLLs which run like the wind. I've never seem any of the unstability that you all like to tout. Baz
Umm doesn't France still disallow private encryption and wants keys knobbled to a stupidly small length?
As for encrypted digital phones, that was a selling point for digital networks a few years ago, so IMHO it didn't get stamped on. Of course I bet the encryption is awful:)
Really? Then how come I've had a server sitting up and running since installation a year and a half ago, with my site getting around 3-4k unique sessions a day (hey it's only a baby), and the only time it went down was for a memory upgrade.
I don't know what the heck half of you do to NT to make it unstable, but I have never had a the grief you've had, except on a development box with some of the development team writing really dodgy code *grin*
ftp.cdrom.com serves ummm ftp files, so you're comparing 1 ftp server to everything that serves Microsoft content, and some of you then complain that the current round of Benchmarks are comparing different things? Come on!
Oh and ummm the boxes that Microsoft use, have, umm less memory than the ftp.cdrom.com ones according to those stats quoted. Gosh! Although I will concede on the number of processors *grin*
So if we're going to compare ftp boxes shall we just stick to those?
Or should I point out that it's sometimes a good idea to run seperate content on seperate servers, have mirrored servers, contingency boxes etc? Not all 96 are serving up www.microsoft.com, or did that slip past some of you in another kneejerk?
"Some of the key issues were that MS made changes to the Winsock API specifically for IIS (AcceptEx, TransmitFile, Fibers and IOCompletionPort)."
Great, so MS made NT serve web pages faster, bloody great! But how can you say thats just for benchmarking purposes? If they tweaked the WinSock API then it's going to run faster period, not just in bench marks, and as far as I'm concerned thats a good thing.
Aside from the kneejerk reactions saying "But the benchmark isn't real world" I take *SEVERE* object to
"Most of NT (and other M$ code) was written by lower echelon programers, under the direction of computer scientists and managers. Many of them had only recently graduated from MSD training classes. In generaly they were operating under marketing imposed time constraints. This shows in the quality of the product."
Right offer proof of that please.
When I worked for them I was
a) In the industry for 10 years b) My manager was a techie, and still programmed. c) I can't be bothered getting MSD d) I had a nice, large, sensible time constraint. e) I love programming, I loved my time at Microsoft, so don't try to insult me by telling me my work was crap.
OK this is a rant, because my brother in law wants to setup a web site of pictures of my nephew *grin* and AOLs web interface is horrible!
Call me a throw back if you will (they do at work because I use EditPad for all my web coding needs *grin*, unless I'm doing ISAPI stuff, Visual C++ yummy) but ever since the spread of WYSIWYG editors (FrontPage, Netscape's built in job, Hotdog, Dreamweaver et al) the standard of HTML on the web has gone to hell.
Now I know I'm guilty of writing dire HTML ( my home page sucks), but most of the time it's viewable in pretty much everything (ah the kludges to get stylesheets working cross browser, thanks Netscape)
It's all very well people putting up pages, but the lack of understanding on whats underneath is getting inexcusable.
In one of my last projects a government agency wanted to use FrontPage to keep a 10,000 page web site up to date, because they didn't want to learn HTML. Heck it's not difficult, and by hand coding you get smaller, nicer, more portable HTML.
Now I don't mind making FTP easier, I quite like IE5's ftp interface, and I long for the day when I can map an ftp site as a directory, but this dumbing down of the web IMHO is a bad move.
Of course this could be because my job involves writing web sites! OK I'm going back to bed *rofl*
Fast track for responsible for putting me off hosting under UNIX. That program bites. It was less stable than IIS under NT, it shut itself down at least twice a day, and it's not like it was dealing with load either, say about 250 hits an hour. It sucks *BIG TIME*:)
And don't get me started on WYSIWYG editors *spit*
Fair enough, for a lazy web server, sticking it on a "normal" speced machine, running IIS or Apache is fine.
Now lets talk large companies, lets choose any sort of database access, banks, insurance companies, anything interative.
What is the use in static HTML these days? Even slashdot isn't static.
So lets forget about the OS or the HTTPD.
In a mission critical environment (that of my customers) I would recommend a serious specced up machine, dual proc (or quad if you want to add SQL to it), raided drive, minimum 2 NICs (for fall over more than anything else),a shit load of memory (current spec I'm throwing these days is.5Gb) and of course mirrored servers.
Now if IIS serves faster on that use it. I'm not a bigot over this (although I did work at Microsoft last year *grin*).
I've used Apache for development of static pages, Netscape Fasttrack under Irix for serving static pages (and that crashed weekly - Netscape server software sucks) and IIS for database intensive, SQL bashing call centre apps.
It's tools for the jobs folks, and the sooner you realise that the better. If Linux can't hack it on a mission critical server, I'm not gonna recommend it. And don't give me grief about using NT for mission critical stuff, I've had it running stock market transfers grossing over $300 million a day, and it never crashed once. Ever. I haven't even seen IIS flip out in a production environment.
>"There would be no need for 4 x 100Base-T connections for each host"
But there is! Apart from security against network failure, when serving speed is critical more *is* better, lets face it, network speed is a bigger bottle neck these days than anything else.
Seriously, when in a banking environment (as I was) there is no way I'm going use a shiity little pentium for a server.
Minimum spec (and this was 2 years ago) was dual proc,.5Gb memory, 5Gb raided harddisks, multiple NICs, multiple power supplies, and another server to mirror it.
There is no way I would ever *ever* recommend going cheap on critical file servers, or web servers, or application servers.
You're viweing this wrong. Look I'll agree Linux is great for older PCs, it's great for a cheap web server, but until it mirrors, clusters, runs SQL and pushes network traffic as fast as a real world mission critical NT box, forget it.
And no, I've had a server running sweet for 6 months, no crashes, no reboots, other than scheduled downtime.
OK I'm not going to compare UK and US education systems.
I went to uni in 1998, and spent the first year learning Cobol, Pascal (well not learning, more like ignoring the lessons as I knew it anyway) and 6502 machine code (which I knew aleady again)
Very helpful wasn't it?
As it came to exam time personal stuff caused me to miss exams (don't ask, it's still painful). The uni offered me the chance to resit the whole year as my failure wasn't academic (although my bad spelling is *grin*), but I looked at what the courses offered and decided why bother, there was nothing helpful on the course.
Mistake, kinda. Starting out it's hard without a degree. I managed to get on a work placement scheme where I started off as a IBM System 38 tape monkey, went through Novell 2.11, and onto PC apps using Microsoft Basic (it was the only thing available) and then got hold of Turbo C (who needs objects? *grin*) I learnt C from K&R, then shifted jobs to do more DOS stuff, using db_vista and C, then to Visual C++ and MFC (huh, whats a thread?!) and from there to the dizzy heights of web development, including stints with banks and Microsoft.
A degree helps when you start After a couple of jobs, forget it.
Errr of course they admit it, compatibility with Windows 3.1, or even 95 programs isn't promised for NT, there's a security model in NT that will cause problems!
Recently I've installed 5 clean NT & IIS4 & SQL 6.5 and MDAC updates, all on Compaq and Gateway boxes without *any* grief what so ever.
I've had friends who have had both Win98 and NT problems with Dells though, I've even had hardware suppliers say "You're plugging it into a Dell? Oh god"
Have you tried any other hardware, or are you stuck with a corporate buying policy?
Barry
Another damned anti-Microsoft kneejerk reaction
on
The Melissa Syndrome
·
· Score: 1
Oh for heavens sake, grow up.
Look Windows has never been touted as a secure system, Word pops up and *asks* you if you want to open documents with macros in.
So if it's all Microsoft's fault, is it Smith and Westons (spelling?) fault that you americans blow the crap out of each other every year?
Now lets if Linux takes off, how many non-geeky people will run their systems as a user with root access, because
a) It's easier b) They don't know any better.
Then lets see if someone can run up a Linux virus.
Heck it's public knowledge that guns can hurt people, thats wide open to abuse and gun manufacturers do nothing. Wow.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean more moderation? Probably; maybe even banning the IPs of some of the worse offenders, or some other form of punishment. We need to tell the trolls and the flamers that we don't want them because they're effectively ruining it for everyone.
But what gets classed as a flame or troll? When I've posted messages either a) pointing out mistakes in knee-jerk anti-Microsoft reactions or b) pointing out that my NT web box has sat up for over a year, without a reboot, some little Linux zealot marks it as a troll, whereas I consider it a factual statement. It's not like I'm even a Microsoft only junkie, we're running Linux for some stuff at work, even Sun boxes (although Netscape web server code bites in my opinion).
So who moderates the moderators?
If you want an idea of Godfrey's general net attitude, take a look on uk.net where's he's posted (and cross posted to news.admin.net-abuse.*) a bunch of self promoting, bloated, "I win", "I'm a hero" articles, then ran, refusing to dicuss them at all.
This of course is *my* opinion, so sue me Dr. Buttmunch if you don't like it.
It's not the OS, it's the software. The Windows version doesn't log CPU time really, it takes the time when the first block was downloaded to when it's complete. If you're using your PC, and Seti isn't processing it still logs this as CPU time. Bit crap that :)
Errrr Office 2000 files can be XML based :)
You're obsolete, please report to recyling.
IIS is a free download. Of course there is the cost of NT to run it on.
Barry
45 days? What someone coding that in? GO on offer evidence and not just incompentance on an IIS admin's part.
No I don't work in Redmond, I don't have stack, or even stock in MS, and I don't do NT administration.
Next.
I'm flamebait? Really? I'm impressed
Or are you just ignoring the currently running IIS system?
It's not as if I'm anti-Unix or anti-Apache, but I am anti-no-basis-slagging-and-lets-not-listen-to-anyo ne-elses-opinion-and-complain-Microsoft- doesn't-listen-to-us.
Grow up.
Oh fudge :) You can tell I'm not awake enough yet, excuse the poor formatting!
1) I'm building a Microsoft-centric solution. Once you start building an ASP-based solution, you're stuck. You have nowhere else to turn. The cost of converting to Perl or JavaScript is just too high. You've walled yourself into a proprietary solution. OK, first off, there's nothing to stop you writing Javascript or Perl ASP, IIS is flexible enough to allow you to slot in any ECMCA (never can remember the acyronm, but you know what I mean!) language. So take your pick, if you pick VB script it's your own damned fault. 2) It's what I know. Microsoft makes a lot of money on the database server and workgroup server market, because "any idiot can use it". What are you basing "any idiot can use it" on? Because it has a GUI interface? You try configuring SQL 6.5, not the easiest thing in the world when you get down to the nitty gritty. SQL 7.0 is beautiful, self optimisation is a wonderful implentation. I've used Netscape, Apache and IIS for hosting, and came to the following conclusion 1) Netscape sucks. Simple as that. Anything that needed restarting once a day was too unreliable to use. And this was under Irix, we're not talking the NT version here. 2) Apache is cute. But thats it, cute. It's handy for running a server throwing up static pages, and for creating lots of little web sites with their own IP addresses. 3) IIS makes it so smooth in integrate databases, I'm not just talking SQL or Access here. I've got a site internally that queries an AS/400. ASP gives me the flexibility for what I want, along with access to Perl should I need it, and the option of standard CGI and ISAPI DLLs which run like the wind. I've never seem any of the unstability that you all like to tout. Baz
My gripe is it's parallel port based, I want a USB or SCSI solution darnit! I have enough hnaging off my parallel port as it is!
Umm doesn't France still disallow private encryption and wants keys knobbled to a stupidly small length?
:)
As for encrypted digital phones, that was a selling point for digital networks a few years ago, so IMHO it didn't get stamped on. Of course I bet the encryption is awful
Really? Then how come I've had a server sitting up and running since installation a year and a half ago, with my site getting around 3-4k unique sessions a day (hey it's only a baby), and the only time it went down was for a memory upgrade.
I don't know what the heck half of you do to NT to make it unstable, but I have never had a the grief you've had, except on a development box with some of the development team writing really dodgy code *grin*
So rebooted many times a day? Rubbish
OK *BUT*
ftp.cdrom.com serves ummm ftp files, so you're comparing 1 ftp server to everything that serves Microsoft content, and some of you then complain that the current round of Benchmarks are comparing different things? Come on!
Oh and ummm the boxes that Microsoft use, have, umm less memory than the ftp.cdrom.com ones according to those stats quoted. Gosh! Although I will concede on the number of processors *grin*
So if we're going to compare ftp boxes shall we just stick to those?
Or should I point out that it's sometimes a good idea to run seperate content on seperate servers, have mirrored servers, contingency boxes etc? Not all 96 are serving up www.microsoft.com, or did that slip past some of you in another kneejerk?
"Some of the key issues were that MS made changes to the Winsock API specifically for IIS (AcceptEx, TransmitFile, Fibers and IOCompletionPort)."
Great, so MS made NT serve web pages faster, bloody great! But how can you say thats just for benchmarking purposes? If they tweaked the WinSock API then it's going to run faster period, not just in bench marks, and as far as I'm concerned thats a good thing.
Right, basically fudge off.
Aside from the kneejerk reactions saying "But the benchmark isn't real world" I take *SEVERE* object to
"Most of NT (and other M$ code) was written by lower echelon programers, under the direction of computer scientists and managers. Many of them had only recently graduated from MSD training classes. In generaly they were operating under marketing imposed time constraints. This shows in the quality of the product."
Right offer proof of that please.
When I worked for them I was
a) In the industry for 10 years
b) My manager was a techie, and still programmed.
c) I can't be bothered getting MSD
d) I had a nice, large, sensible time constraint.
e) I love programming, I loved my time at Microsoft, so don't try to insult me by telling me my work was crap.
So put up evidence, or shut up.
OK this is a rant, because my brother in law wants to setup a web site of pictures of my nephew *grin* and AOLs web interface is horrible!
Call me a throw back if you will (they do at work because I use EditPad for all my web coding needs *grin*, unless I'm doing ISAPI stuff, Visual C++ yummy) but ever since the spread of WYSIWYG editors (FrontPage, Netscape's built in job, Hotdog, Dreamweaver et al) the standard of HTML on the web has gone to hell.
Now I know I'm guilty of writing dire HTML ( my home page sucks), but most of the time it's viewable in pretty much everything (ah the kludges to get stylesheets working cross browser, thanks Netscape)
It's all very well people putting up pages, but the lack of understanding on whats underneath is getting inexcusable.
In one of my last projects a government agency wanted to use FrontPage to keep a 10,000 page web site up to date, because they didn't want to learn HTML. Heck it's not difficult, and by hand coding you get smaller, nicer, more portable HTML.
Now I don't mind making FTP easier, I quite like IE5's ftp interface, and I long for the day when I can map an ftp site as a directory, but this dumbing down of the web IMHO is a bad move.
Of course this could be because my job involves writing web sites! OK I'm going back to bed *rofl*
FASTRACK?! NEAT?!
Fast track for responsible for putting me off hosting under UNIX. That program bites. It was less stable than IIS under NT, it shut itself down at least twice a day, and it's not like it was dealing with load either, say about 250 hits an hour. It sucks *BIG TIME* :)
And don't get me started on WYSIWYG editors *spit*
Right lets talk about the hardware.
.5Gb) and of course mirrored servers.
Fair enough, for a lazy web server, sticking it on a "normal" speced machine, running IIS or Apache is fine.
Now lets talk large companies, lets choose any sort of database access, banks, insurance companies, anything interative.
What is the use in static HTML these days? Even slashdot isn't static.
So lets forget about the OS or the HTTPD.
In a mission critical environment (that of my customers) I would recommend a serious specced up machine, dual proc (or quad if you want to add SQL to it), raided drive, minimum 2 NICs (for fall over more than anything else),a shit load of memory (current spec I'm throwing these days is
Now if IIS serves faster on that use it. I'm not a bigot over this (although I did work at Microsoft last year *grin*).
I've used Apache for development of static pages, Netscape Fasttrack under Irix for serving static pages (and that crashed weekly - Netscape server software sucks) and IIS for database intensive, SQL bashing call centre apps.
It's tools for the jobs folks, and the sooner you realise that the better. If Linux can't hack it on a mission critical server, I'm not gonna recommend it. And don't give me grief about using NT for mission critical stuff, I've had it running stock market transfers grossing over $300 million a day, and it never crashed once. Ever. I haven't even seen IIS flip out in a production environment.
>"There would be no need for 4 x 100Base-T connections for each host"
But there is! Apart from security against network failure, when serving speed is critical more *is* better, lets face it, network speed is a bigger bottle neck these days than anything else.
I do.
.5Gb memory, 5Gb raided harddisks, multiple NICs, multiple power supplies, and another server to mirror it.
Seriously, when in a banking environment (as I was) there is no way I'm going use a shiity little pentium for a server.
Minimum spec (and this was 2 years ago) was dual proc,
There is no way I would ever *ever* recommend going cheap on critical file servers, or web servers, or application servers.
You're viweing this wrong. Look I'll agree Linux is great for older PCs, it's great for a cheap web server, but until it mirrors, clusters, runs SQL and pushes network traffic as fast as a real world mission critical NT box, forget it.
And no, I've had a server running sweet for 6 months, no crashes, no reboots, other than scheduled downtime.
So you don't but anything with a linux driver included then?
Hmm that'll limit your choice of
mice
graphics cards
network cards.
Damnit quit bitching and write your own driver
OK I'm not going to compare UK and US education systems.
I went to uni in 1998, and spent the first year learning Cobol, Pascal (well not learning, more like ignoring the lessons as I knew it anyway) and 6502 machine code (which I knew aleady again)
Very helpful wasn't it?
As it came to exam time personal stuff caused me to miss exams (don't ask, it's still painful). The uni offered me the chance to resit the whole year as my failure wasn't academic (although my bad spelling is *grin*), but I looked at what the courses offered and decided why bother, there was nothing helpful on the course.
Mistake, kinda. Starting out it's hard without a degree. I managed to get on a work placement scheme where I started off as a IBM System 38 tape monkey, went through Novell 2.11, and onto PC apps using Microsoft Basic (it was the only thing available) and then got hold of Turbo C (who needs objects? *grin*) I learnt C from K&R, then shifted jobs to do more DOS stuff, using db_vista and C, then to Visual C++ and MFC (huh, whats a thread?!) and from there to the dizzy heights of web development, including stints with banks and Microsoft.
A degree helps when you start
After a couple of jobs, forget it.
Barry
Errr of course they admit it, compatibility with Windows 3.1, or even 95 programs isn't promised for NT, there's a security model in NT that will cause problems!
Well lets see
Recently I've installed 5 clean NT & IIS4 & SQL 6.5 and MDAC updates, all on Compaq and Gateway boxes without *any* grief what so ever.
I've had friends who have had both Win98 and NT problems with Dells though, I've even had hardware suppliers say "You're plugging it into a Dell? Oh god"
Have you tried any other hardware, or are you stuck with a corporate buying policy?
Barry
Oh for heavens sake, grow up.
Look Windows has never been touted as a secure system, Word pops up and *asks* you if you want to open documents with macros in.
So if it's all Microsoft's fault, is it Smith and Westons (spelling?) fault that you americans blow the crap out of each other every year?
Now lets if Linux takes off, how many non-geeky people will run their systems as a user with root access, because
a) It's easier
b) They don't know any better.
Then lets see if someone can run up a Linux virus.
Heck it's public knowledge that guns can hurt people, thats wide open to abuse and gun manufacturers do nothing. Wow.