Advocacy and mindlessness

IMarshal · Dec 21, 1999

In a bored moment today, I happened to stop by OSOpinion. There I found a particularly amusing "opinion", which is humorous not because of its poor writing, cluelessness or bias, which one has to take for granted on this site, but because literally every point the man makes is either wrong or inaccurate. And the sheer tone of it makes textbook reading for students of advo-psychology.The only reason I regret posting this is that I'm preempting the usual 'OSOpinion exposes NT as poser OS' article from treatment.While reading, ask yourself this: "if I were this clueless, would I be exposing my opinions to the world like this?"Why Windows NT Sucks, Part 2 - Is WinNT Ready For The Enterprise?

Zagato-sama · Dec 21, 1999

Here's another great one http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MIKE2/mike12.html I just "discovered" OsOpinion's website a few days ago. For a open minded website they seem to have even more Linux articles then Slashdot. ~90% in fact

IMarshal · Dec 21, 1999

Not bad. It beats mine for attitude, although mine has your beaten on cluelessness.One gem from "Mike": after failing to understand the meaning of "RTM" and calling W2K an "unnecessary" and "unproven" OS, he goes on to say: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't hate MS. But if they spent more time trying to fix what's wrong with Windows 95/98 and NT, and less time trying to kill off the competition, I'd like them more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what does he think Windows 2000 is, if not a major overhaul of the bad things in '98 and NT?

tjhoover · Dec 22, 1999

Thanks for the laugh IMarshall. I'd never visited the site before and found it quite interesting. I was also particularly amused by this opinion piece: http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/JackShedd/JackShedd4.html I'm surprised that it hadn't already been discussed in this forum. The Mac Wars are over folks. Go home.

Zagato-sama · Dec 22, 1999

Actually your's are just a copy of "Linux myths" by Microsoft. Only in reverse direction and not layed out proffesionaly View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif Ham radio aside, half the stuff stated about NT is either fluff, or is resolved in Win2K. Sound familiar? I think Linux advocats have exhausted the right to use the acronym "FUD" Anyway time for me to go shopping for a two button mouse as this 3 button logitech is 'faking' working under NT. Don't you hate it when your hardware does that?

Venture · Dec 22, 1999

You folks don't know what "mindless" is.Got to http://www.macsurfer.com and check out any of the links under "Opinion/Editorial/Rumor." The site changes often so you'll never want for fresh cluelessness.[This message has been edited by Venture (edited December 21, 1999).]

DrPizza · Dec 22, 1999

This is long. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>1) File Systems.WinNT supports only four file systems; NT's own NTFS, FAT16 (the old DOS FS, without support for long filenames), NetWare and Macintosh file systems. It does not even support FAT32, the Win98 FS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh yeah? It does, through third part support. Win2K does it natively. But gosh, NT 4 doesn't support natively an FS that predates it. Well, lummy, that's a surprise.And what about FAT 12? Or are you telling me that NT can't read floppies? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Linux supports ca. 30, including all the preceding, and the Network FS, which makes it possible to combine all the computers on a LAN into a single directory structure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is Network FS the same as NFS? Windows NT can do that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The Windows 2000 equivalent is an Active Directory, which will be available in 2001, D.v. Linux can format NTFS floppy disks, but WinNT cannot!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heh. Windows NT can format NTFS floppies, actually, but you have to trick it (details are, IIRC, on the sysinternals site). NTFS has far too high overheads for floppies; that's why FAT 12 is used for floppies. When NT formats an NTFS partition it *deliberately* writes a 2 Mb file (I think into the $Extend directory) to prevent the usage of NTFS on floppies. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>2) Administration.WinNT does not have disk quotas, so it is possible for a user to fill up an entire file system and bring the WinNT server to a halt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> NTFS has the capability, since NTFS 4, but it went unimplemented. I *think* that third parties implemented it, but I'm not certain. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Win2k will have this feature,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Will have? Does have, ducky. My CD's in the post. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>D.v. Linux and WinNT both have Access Control Lists, but WinNT does not have the concept of file ownership by group and user.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure what this means; I can set a file to be viewable by, say, the "Administrators" group, and it's accessible as you might expect; by any member of "Administrators" but that might be Win2K-only. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This means that the WinNT sysadmin has to set the permissions for every file... unless he is proficient in Perl.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I also have lovely little tickboxes that let me decide if permissions are inherited or not. I can also select a bunch of files at a time and set their permissions, even if they're in different folders and/or hard disks. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>3) Graphics. Linux supports a dozen graphics libraries from the simple (svgalib) to the highly complex (X11, or the X Window System).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> NT doesn't support X? Er, since when? And what does it matter than NT doesn't supply Linux (or *nix)-only graphics APIs? Where's DirectX for Linux? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>With WinNT, you can have either the Windows window manager or text. Linux will let you have 12 full-screen text sessions open.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> NT allows as many as you have memory for; you can have loads of full-screen command prompts and alt-tab between them, if you want. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Under X11, you have a choice of window managers such as KDE, Gnome, WindowMaker and AfterStep. KDE has many, many more features than the Windows desktop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So don't use the Explorer shell. There's nothing forcing you to use it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>4) Hardware.Windows NT does not support?? AX25, packet-switching ham radio.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All it takes is an IHV to write a driver. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>? USB (Universal Serial Bus).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interestingly enough, the Win9x USB core components are all version stamped "Windows NT". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>? Infra-red modules on the motherboard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All it takes is an IHV to write a driver. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>? Plug'n'Pray PCI cards. Very odd, when you consider that Microsoft was one of the driving forces behind this technology. But don't expect Win98 to have the right driver for a PnP device.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Plug and Play is properly only applicable to ISA, and yes, the pnpisa.inf driver is not 100% reliable. But Win2K handles me swapping cards and resources like a dream.And what does Win98 have to do with this? It's got the widest range of drivers I've ever seen.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>?remote or diskless boot-up. A Linux machine can download its boot image over a LAN.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> NT, because of its different market, needs local storage and such. Gosh.Such features are generally for terminals, not workstations or servers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>? 3-button mice. This isn't trivial if you use the mouse a lot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, lemme get this straight, I'm only imagining that I can use my wheely mouse in NT am I? Yeah, I thought so. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>? game controllers, such as joysticks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm. I have a game controller in device manager. I don't have a joystick to test it with, though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>WinNT does not support many high-end video cards of the type favored by gamers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Like? Last time I checked, it was a damn sight easier to get OpenGL and such working for any video card in NT than in Linux. Maybe you mean it doesn't have support for hardware released up to three years after its release in the box. Well, gosh. Just use the driver from the IHV. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>? processors other than the Intel Pentium.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AMD Athlon? AMD K6? Intel PPro/PII/PIII/Xeon? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Microsoft progressively dropped support for the MIPS, PowerPC and finally Alpha.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> MIPS machines became very rare and very niche -- no market. PowerPC machines are rare, no market. The Alpha did have some kind of a market, but AFAIK Compaq didn't much care for NT, so MS dropped it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Win2000 will be available for the Itanium (aka Merced, Intel's new 64-bit processor) in 2001, D.v. Linux has been ported to many platforms--including the Merced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So have all manner of RTOSes, and other things. But that doesn't make them good. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>5) Scripting. Most of WinNT's tasks require the admin to be sitting in front of the monitor and clicking menus with the mouse. WinNT has scripts (batch files) and a shell (cmd.exe) but they give the admin little control over the machine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Evidently you've never heard of WSH (windows scripting host). That can use OLE automation to control almost anything. That can be programmed in whatever languages you have installed. ATM, I can use VBScript, JScript and PerlScript. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A lot of the admin's time can be saved by automating tasks such as cleaning up directories while the machine is idle, monitoring users and processes, making reports from event logs, etc. Scripting languages such as Tcl/tk and Perl for Win32 go a long way towards rectifying this deficiency. Microsoft owes the open source community a big "Thank you" for turning WinNT into an approximation of an operating system. Linux offers several shells (command interpreters), such as bash, zsh, tcsh and pash, and each one can be customized to the user's taste.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bash, at least, is available for Win32 anyway. Windows has a whole host of scripting tools available for it; WSH comes out of the box. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>6) Parallel processing. Some memory-sharing NT clusters have been built, but they are small (4-8 machines) and require a Linux server! Linux MPPs can be configured for SIMD, MIMD, SPMD, message passing, shared memory and aggregate functions--whatever they are. Without the source code, you cannot get the requisite low-level memory access. Look at http://cnls.lanl.gov/Internal/Computing/Avalon/FAQ.html, particularly question 17.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, NT can't do very well that which it isn't designed for. That's amazing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>7) Kernel.Several studies have shown that Linux is a faster web server than WinNT on all but the most expensive equipment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And several have shown the opposite, from which we conclude, studies are worthless. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>(Okay, *BSD is faster still). WinNT lacks a number of kernel optimizations for Web serving, such as telnet in kernel,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please, someone, explain why you need telnet in kernel for good webserving. Actually, explain what telnet in kernel even means. A telnet daemon? Or a telnet program? Or what? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>kernel sockets, real time protocol, etc. Linux has insmod and delmod, but WinNT cannot load and unload device drivers while running.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Horseshit. Tomorrow I shall post a link to a piece of software that does just that. I use it all the time, and it works perfectly. I'd post the link now, but my PC is sitting upstairs, and I'm not going all the way upstairs. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That is something you should consider if you are planning on buying a server with hot-swappable drives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um, no, it evidently isn't. Our servers (IBM Netfinity 5500 M20 PoSes) have hot-swappable drives. And they run under NT. And they have hot-pluggable PCI cards. Which all work. Under NT. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>8) Software Development Cycle. WinNT lacks ca. 20 Unix-specific system calls, so that cumbersome workarounds are required when porting Unix apps to WinNT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And how many Windows-specific system calls does Unix lack? If you want POSIX compatibility for NT, just go out and buy it. IIRC, MS have bought a company who sold just that, recently. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The Win32 API implementation of inter-process communication does not distinguish among the various classes of IPC, requiring the developer to perform back-flips through flaming hoops to keep track of one particular thread. For these and other reasons, the software development cycle is longer under WinNT than under Unix. Estimates vary from "twice as long" to "orders of magnitude" longer (see www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.html). Debugging WinNT kernel device drivers is particularly difficult, and requires the use of two machines connected by a serial cable!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Debugging by serial link is hardly unique to NT. As for the rest, I'd like something a bit harder than 'estimates'. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Okay, now for the flip side. Linux does not have . . . b) ?drivers for the latest hardware, particularly scanners and printers that use the Windows Printing System. If there isn't a Linux driver, it's because the manufacturer has not published the card's specifications. Linux can't operate Winmodems, but now there are Linmodems!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't argue with this.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>c)?registries. All the information about a WinNT box is kept in the Registry. Since it is not human-readable, and it is accessible only from the GUI, you are in deep doo-doo if it gets munged.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uh, since when? Since when has it been impossible to get a text version of the registry, editable in DOS edit, and reimportable into NT? I can edit the registry with a text editor just fine. It doesn't need any fancy third party tools or anything. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>d) ?defraggers. Ext2, Linux's file system, is designed to make defragging unnecessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Linux has no defraggers? News to me. Fragmentation is unavoidable (it seems -- both EXT2FS and NTFS are designed to avoid fragmentation, both EXT2FS and NTFS suffer from it anyway). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>e)?the Blue Screen of Death. Yeah! All right! Woo-hoo!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, it just has kernel panics and dumped cores. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But my experience with WinNT has been that you're lucky if you DO get a BSOD, because you can then shut down the app.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, no, BSOD means blue screen *of*death*. The machine needs rebooting. Perhaps you're confusing NT with Win9x which throws up all manner of non-fatal gr[ae]y text on blue background error messages. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Usually the machine just locks up and you have to reboot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If it's a BSOD, that's always. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm always amused by the message, "This application has performed an illegal operation . . ." What kind of operation? A lobotomy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, an illegal operation. Illegal as in, not allowed, operation as in, operation. An operation that's not permitted, normally because it would require reading from or writing to memory that's not allocated to a particular task. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I must mention other OSes so their devotees won't feel slighted. If you're a Macophile or a BeOS fetishist . . . well, I don't understand how anyone can have a taste for that sort of thing, but I won't pass judgment on those who practice alternate lifestyles.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ho ho ho. How very decent of you. Wanker. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Recently the mainstream media have been asking, "Is Linux ready for the enterprise?" They should be asking, "Is WinNT ready for the enterprise, after all this time?" If we're talking about aircraft carriers or starships, the answer to the latter question is a resounding "No!" Remember that a WinNT crash left the USS Yorktown dead in the water for four hours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gosh. What I've not been able to find out about that (perhaps someone can enlighten me) is was that an NT problem, or a screwed up device driver, or a piece of hardware going AWOL? Well, there we have it. All in all a pretty dumb piece of writing by whoever did it. Evidently they don't know much about anything.

Evil_Merlin · Dec 22, 1999

Actually the whole anti-MS thing is rather amusing. The anti-Microsoft herd has been claiming all kinds of "wonderful" things about NT, Win9x and what-not for years now. The MacJihad and the rabid Linux people (not all Linux people are rabid) seem to know even less about NT and Windows than my wife does (who just installed Windows2000 last night with no input from me, she was happy she could finally help me with a computer...), as all the claims about "crashing a ship", "daily reboots", "slow system performance", and other crap gets amusing to hear as I continue using my Windows NT system (with a more than 2 year up time currently), wondering how the hell the people that supposedly run those computers still have jobs, or ever got jobs to begin with.One read of the Mac pages listed below, or Slashdot prove that fanatics are indeed a bad thing....

IMarshal · Dec 22, 1999

Concerning the Yorktown, a reputable source such as comp.risks says: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>in September 1997, the Yorktown suffered a systems failure during maneuvers off the coast of Cape Charles, VA., apparently as a result of the failure to prevent a divide by zero in a Windows NT application. The zero seems to have been an erroneous data item that was manually entered<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Source: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.88.html#subj1.1In other words, the failure appears to have occurred in the Navy's custom software that was running on NT, and was caused by some kind of user input that wasn't expected by the program's authors.I've always found it rather odd that so many Linux advo-drones use this as an example the inadequacy of NT. I mean, does Linux have a magic config file option that protects 3rd party software from its own bugs?

IMarshal · Dec 22, 1999

Zagato-sama:At least Microsoft's "Linux Myths" were about 50% accurate.

Some people don't even bother...

Coredog64 · Dec 22, 1999

If you want to see some real mindlessness, check out the Kirch paper: http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/ The guy is NT _3.51_ certified and passes himself of as an MCP (yes, I know that those tests don't expire for another few weeks View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifCheck out the age on all of his links. NT 3.51 vs. BSD? NT 4.0 vs RH 5.0 circa 1997?I actually had a chance to correspond with the guy. I pointed out that most of the freeware that makes a Linux distro useable (i.e. Perl, gcc, mail and web servers) is available freely. His response? Doesn't count, because it doesn't come on the OS CD from the manufacturer!Check it out. It should be good for a few grins.

_klamath_ · Dec 22, 1999

It's interesting that in a thread commenting on cluelessness, PeterB has contribued some of his own: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Oh yeah? It does, through third part support. Win2K does it natively. But gosh, NT 4 doesn't support natively an FS that predates it. Well, lummy, that's a surprise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What? If an FS predates NT4, then the FS would be out BEFORE NT4. Therefore, there is no reason NT4 shouldn't support it. If you meant that NT4 came out before FAT32 (i.e. NT4 predates the FS), then why couldn't M$ have added support in a service pack? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Is Network FS the same as NFS? Windows NT can do that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'd be interested to see that.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Heh. Windows NT can format NTFS floppies, actually, but you have to trick it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><sarcasm>gee, I *wish* I could be using WinNT right now</sarcasm> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>NTFS has the capability [quotas], since NTFS 4, but it went unimplemented. I *think* that third parties implemented it, but I'm not certain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thats another thing that annoys me about WinNT - the core OS is expensive enough; but in order to be able to do anything useful, you need X 3-rd party add ons. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So don't use the Explorer shell. There's nothing forcing you to use it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Except for the fact that (nearly) all other shells suck. There is no point in denying that Linux gives you more choice than Windows - in GUI environment, shell, etc. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>NT, because of its different market, needs local storage and such. Gosh. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And what "different market" would that be? Linux can be run on anywhere from diskless terminals and Palm-size PCs to supercomputers and Beowulf Clusters. If NT can't scale as well as Linux, well that is NT's fault. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Such features are generally for terminals, not workstations or servers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And since when is having more features, and more flexibility, a bad thing? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Bash, at least, is available for Win32 anyway. Windows has a whole host of scripting tools available for it; WSH comes out of the box.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you trying to say that Windows has more scripting tools available for it than Linux/*NIX? [..] Too tired to shoot down the rest of your hair-brained points, PeterB. Sorry! G'night.

Ken Fisher · Dec 22, 1999

PeterB, great post. I was about to write half of that out myself. That dude is seriously baked.Nice to see you contribute some hardcore content today. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif

Horatio · Dec 22, 1999

I'm going to have to refute a few of klamath's points here... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is Network FS the same as NFS? Windows NT can do that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'd be interested to see that....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, it's pretty easy. You just need to install MS Services For Unix, and you're ready to go. It's like Samba in reverse... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NTFS has the capability [quotas], since NTFS 4, but it went unimplemented. I *think* that third parties implemented it, but I'm not certain. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thats another thing that annoys me about WinNT - the core OS is expensive enough; but in order to be able to do anything useful, you need X 3-rd party add ons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well quotas were implemented in some service pack or another... But most needed functionality is available out of the box. The only thing that I need a 3rd party app for is X Windows. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NT, because of its different market, needs local storage and such. Gosh.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------And what "different market" would that be? Linux can be run on anywhere from diskless terminals and Palm-size PCs to supercomputers and Beowulf Clusters. If NT can't scale as well as Linux, well that is NT's fault. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Windows runs on many different platforms too... Windows CE to Windows NT Embedded to Windows2000 Datacenter... Admittedly not as many platforms are supported, but Windows does scale quite well. If you've ever used a Beowulf cluster, you'd know that it has lousy parallel performance due to its slow network. We have a nice 64 proc cluster running linux, and it kick ass for trivially parallizeable apps (raytracing, TSP, etc...), but is lousy when there is a lot of communication (SPLASH2 bench). (OK, we're trying to use a 100BT network here, so it's partially our fault...) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bash, at least, is available for Win32 anyway. Windows has a whole host of scripting tools available for it; WSH comes out of the box. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Are you trying to say that Windows has more scripting tools available for it than Linux/*NIX? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you trying to say that you write scripts in something other than bash, Bourne shell, Perl or AWK? Having 100 useless scripting languages is much worse than having 3 good ones. Really, all you need is Perl (IMHO).

DrPizza · Dec 22, 1999

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What? If an FS predates NT4, then the FS would be out BEFORE NT4. Therefore, there is no reason NT4 shouldn't support it. If you meant that NT4 came out before FAT32 (i.e. NT4 predates the FS), then why couldn't M$ have added support in a service pack?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh gosh, as you can, I'm sure, work out for youself, that was just a slip of the fingers. NT predates FAT32 is what I meant to say, as you well know. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is Network FS the same as NFS? Windows NT can do that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd be interested to see that....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sure you would. It's not very difficult. The thing you need are the NT Services for Unix -- one of MS's better kept secrets. That includes, amongst other things, full NFS support (accessing NFS shares and creating one's own) and a telnetd. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heh. Windows NT can format NTFS floppies, actually, but you have to trick it -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <sarcasm>gee, I *wish* I could be using WinNT right now</sarcasm><HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just why would you want an NTFS floppy? It was a meaningless thing to say when discussing if NT is ready to be an enterprise OS. All I'm saying is that the original writer is wrong to think that NT can't do it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NTFS has the capability [quotas], since NTFS 4, but it went unimplemented. I *think* that third parties implemented it, but I'm not certain. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thats another thing that annoys me about WinNT - the core OS is expensive enough; but in order to be able to do anything useful, you need X 3-rd party add ons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One thing that annoys be about Linux is that it's only free if your time is also free. Mine isn't. I'd rather pay a 3rd party for an off-the-shelf drop-in solution, actually. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So don't use the Explorer shell. There's nothing forcing you to use it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Except for the fact that (nearly) all other shells suck. There is no point in denying that Linux gives you more choice than Windows - in GUI environment, shell, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That all the other shells suck is nothing to do with Windows (IMO they don't all suck anyway). And how is this important for an enterprise class OS? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NT, because of its different market, needs local storage and such. Gosh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And what "different market" would that be? Linux can be run on anywhere from diskless terminals and Palm-size PCs to supercomputers and Beowulf Clusters. If NT can't scale as well as Linux, well that is NT's fault.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The ability to run on diskless terminals isn't particularly relevent to an enterprise OS. That's what the article was about. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Such features are generally for terminals, not workstations or servers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And since when is having more features, and more flexibility, a bad thing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We are discussing enterprise server OSes. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bash, at least, is available for Win32 anyway. Windows has a whole host of scripting tools available for it; WSH comes out of the box. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you trying to say that Windows has more scripting tools available for it than Linux/*NIX?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where did I say that? What I was saying was, the original author is just plain wrong to say that NT only comes with batch files, and is wrong to cite (say) Bash as a *nix-only advantage. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>[..] Too tired to shoot down the rest of your hair-brained points, PeterB. Sorry! G'night.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, well, I feel well and truly shot down....

DrPizza · Dec 22, 1999

And here are a few useful links:Download the beta of the NT services for UNIX: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/library/planning/interop/sfu.asp The link is at the bottom of the page.Dynamically load and unload NT device drivers: http://www.osr.com/resource/files/osrloaderv22.zip It creates and removes the necessary registry entries for kernel-mode drivers, and allows them to be loaded and unloaded at will. I've used it with, for instance, the SBLive device driver (emu10k1.sys I should think), and it damn well works. No rebooting for new drivers 99% of the time.

.劉煒 · Dec 22, 1999

Hey .. since when is USB support availible for NT4? .. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifAnd, also .. the lack of DX gamepad support really does suck. My uber whizzer gravis Xterminator detects as a ... 4 button gamepad. Go fig.Yeah, yeah, it's all fixed in NT5 .. rigggghhhht.Heck, I'd just be happy with full DX7 and Device support in NT4. Dunnae need no active services.. no IE bundleing.. Oh, and if you don't like exploder.. check out geoshell .. (www.geoshell.com)(and dont' mind the blathering, I've been awake for a bit.)

Evil_Merlin · Dec 22, 1999

Actually .milFox,Windows2000 contains FULL USB support, FULL DirectX 7.0a support, if you do not need active services, don't use em.Windows2000 (it has not been called NT5 in months... OK a year or so) is a great OS, coming to you live from a Windows2000 system... (release build)

dam · Dec 22, 1999

Boy I was feeling really left out in this guy's article but at the last moment he pulled that statement about MacOS and BeOS users out of his ass. Now I can be downtrodden just like all the MS users out there. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

treatment · Dec 22, 1999

Hmmm. View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gifI thought I was reading mac-apologists posts. Turns out to be, uhh, MS-apologists posts. At least, the third-party drivers with the mac are stable, and linux-drivers were written by linux-hackers. Just have to wonder why. Blame the third-party drivers!!! --treatment--

Coredog64 · Dec 22, 1999

Re: USB and NTIIRC, Blue Water Systems makes a driver SDK that allows IHVs to write USB drivers for NT 4.0. I don't think it's the same 100% support you get in 98/2000. So USB is doable in NT 4.0 (or at least as doable as kernel 2.4 View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )However, WTF does USB support have to do with an enterprise class OS? Does someone make a RAID that only interfaces using USB?

_klamath_ · Dec 22, 1999

Horatio + PeterB, thanks for the info re: MS Services for Unix. Cool... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Are you trying to say that you write scripts in something other than bash, Bourne shell, Perl or AWK? Having 100 useless scripting languages is much worse than having 3 good ones. Really, all you need is Perl (IMHO).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good point - but more choice is always good. And is there a Wintel equivelent of expect? Or has that been ported to Wintel?(PeterB): <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Oh gosh, as you can, I'm sure, work out for youself, that was just a slip of the fingers. NT predates FAT32 is what I meant to say, as you well know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You mean a slip of the tongue? *smile*

DrPizza · Dec 22, 1999

Oh, and NT can do load balanced clustering too. Cluster aware applications will spread their load across multiple machines. It's not the same as Beowulf clustering, but NT *can* cluster and *can* distribute load across multiple machines, and it can do redundant clustering and so on. No, I mean slip of the fingers; I was typing, wasn't I?

Zagato-sama · Dec 22, 1999

Actually, not to nitpick, but more choices = good only applies in the case of "good choices" Having 20 command line e-mail clients for example is not a "good" thing, it's a "wasteful" thing. It'd be much better if the developers pooled their resources to create 3-4 "excellent" ones. A lot of trash does not benefit the customer.

IMarshal · Dec 22, 1999

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>more choices = good only applies in the case of "good choices" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In general, I disagree with this. More choices usually leads to better choices, eventually, so I think espousing this view implies a very short term view of markets. I do agree that in your particular example and in others your statement is accurate. But in general, I think it's obvious that an abundance of choices leads to greater competition and better products.In the case of NT scripting vs. Linux scripting, more is only better if the particular package you want on one platform is only available on the other or is less functional. While WSH on NT is extraordinarily powerful, and NT has Perl and most of the good Linux scripting options, the UNIX design philosophy leads to applications that are a lot easier to script than your average Windows application. Passing judgement here almost requires a subjective decision, so I think I'll pass.

Evil_Merlin · Dec 22, 1999

Talking about NT clustering... I just got in my CL1850 from Compaq. It is a small two node cluster (each with 1gig of RAM, and 2 550 mhz Pentium III's), sharing a RAID tower in the middle... damn this thing is SWEET!(and it only cost $25,000)

.劉煒 · Dec 24, 1999

Well .. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif SOmeone earlier did mention USB as a strongpoint of NT. (4) ina rebuttal. IHV's may be able to write drivers, but, point is, they don't exist for the hardware I use right now. Which is the important part, n'est-pas?As for w2k (ick.. I prefer NT5 as a name,go fig) .. I tend like a long, stable enviroment, not one that'll expire in .. oh, however many days, for my personal boxen.So, when I can upgrade without killing my settings, I'll go. Otherwise.. *whine* ... And seriously, the *only* features of nt5 (pttpt) that are valuable to me are DX7 and better PNP support. *shrug*. Don't need active directory, etc .. in an enviroment, imho. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif At least not until it fully supports (and is supported by) more OS's than just win32 stuff.

Advocacy and mindlessness

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Centurion

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Legatus Legionis

Well-known member

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Founder & Editor-in-Chief

Ars Legatus Legionis

Well-known member

Well-known member

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Praefectus

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Well-known member

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

nproxy.org