All you @home subscribers, let's get on the newsgroups and start hollering about this. To me, this cap is totally unacceptable, whether or not I use a web/ftp server. What happened to "100 times faster than a modem"?? Indeed, if @home sees this as an acceptable alternative to actually upgrading their network, I will certainly find another type of service. The newsgroups you can post to and get more information from are as follows: athome.discussion-athomesvc athome.discussion-gen eral athome.users-general I think that only @home subscribers have access to these groups.
Please don't bother trying to bash the stability of *nix as compared to Windows NT. I work at an NT shop with over 30 servers where every day at least three NT boxes go schizo (apparently randomly, it's pretty well spread out among them, i.e. no troublesome children in particular). This is not due to bad configuration or even cranky hardware (half of them are HP Netservers), but due to the operating systems' inherent instability. Granted, these servers are under moderate to heavy loading pretty much all day, but that is not (IMHO) an abnormal requirement for a server. In contrast, the only BSD box we use (firewall and netmonitoring among other things) handles an ENORMOUS amount of traffic on a constant basis and has crashed or freaked out exactly ZERO times in eight months. In addition, I administrate a few Linux webserv boxen on the side, and have had exactly ZERO problems with them that I didn't cause myself.
So please don't bother claiming that NT is a superior product stability-wise, I think everyone reading these articles have enough sense to realize the ridiculousness of your statement. I for one cannot resist a troll though.:)
Good gawd, no kidding! Let's see, how long did it take from detection to cure? hmm less than a day? Wow. Let's conjecture on how MS would have handled this:
Publicly deny that a problem exists for 3 months while we figure it out.
Wait 2 more months for more bugs err features to be found so we can justify releasing a "Service Pack" that will cause more problems than it cures.
I think I'll stick with the "unstable" OS that doesn't screw me backwards (not to mention cost a fortune for crappy code I can't even evaluate).
Good gawd, no kidding! Let's see, how long did it take from detection to cure? hmm less than a day? Wow. Let's conjecture on how MS would have handled this:
Publicly deny that a problem exists for 3 months while we figure it out.
Wait 2 more months for more bugs err features to be found so we can justify releasing a "Service Pack" that will cause more problems than it cures.
I think I'll stick with the "unstable" OS that doesn't screw me backwards (not to mention cost a fortune for crappy code I can't even evaluate).
Slashdot Mirror
Now THAT would be funny, if there had been a typo, and it was really "The GEEK shall inherit the earth".
doc
All you @home subscribers, let's get on the newsgroups and start hollering about this. To me, this cap is totally unacceptable, whether or not I use a web/ftp server. What happened to "100 times faster than a modem"?? Indeed, if @home sees this as an acceptable alternative to actually upgrading their network, I will certainly find another type of service.n eral
The newsgroups you can post to and get more information from are as follows:
athome.discussion-athomesvc
athome.discussion-ge
athome.users-general
I think that only @home subscribers have access to these groups.
That would be a capital-E-vil, as in the fruits of the devil?
;>
Please don't bother trying to bash the stability of *nix as compared to Windows NT. I work at an NT shop with over 30 servers where every day at least three NT boxes go schizo (apparently randomly, it's pretty well spread out among them, i.e. no troublesome children in particular). This is not due to bad configuration or even cranky hardware (half of them are HP Netservers), but due to the operating systems' inherent instability. Granted, these servers are under moderate to heavy loading pretty much all day, but that is not (IMHO) an abnormal requirement for a server. In contrast, the only BSD box we use (firewall and netmonitoring among other things) handles an ENORMOUS amount of traffic on a constant basis and has crashed or freaked out exactly ZERO times in eight months. In addition, I administrate a few Linux webserv boxen on the side, and have had exactly ZERO problems with them that I didn't cause myself.
:)
So please don't bother claiming that NT is a superior product stability-wise, I think everyone reading these articles have enough sense to realize the ridiculousness of your statement. I for one cannot resist a troll though.
doc.
I'm also too stupid to figure out how to remove it, so here's my humble apologies instead.
:) doc.
Good gawd, no kidding! Let's see, how long did it take from detection to cure? hmm less than a day? Wow. Let's conjecture on how MS would have handled this:
Publicly deny that a problem exists for 3 months while we figure it out.
Wait 2 more months for more bugs err features to be found so we can justify releasing a "Service Pack" that will cause more problems than it cures.
I think I'll stick with the "unstable" OS that doesn't screw me backwards (not to mention cost a fortune for crappy code I can't even evaluate).
doc.
Good gawd, no kidding! Let's see, how long did it take from detection to cure? hmm less than a day? Wow. Let's conjecture on how MS would have handled this:
Publicly deny that a problem exists for 3 months while we figure it out.
Wait 2 more months for more bugs err features to be found so we can justify releasing a "Service Pack" that will cause more problems than it cures.
I think I'll stick with the "unstable" OS that doesn't screw me backwards (not to mention cost a fortune for crappy code I can't even evaluate).
doc.