Re: Proud of everyone!

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 22:30:40 -0400, DFS wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> So proud of everyone for letting our local DooFuS spew on and on
>> unanswered. Maybe eventually he'll tire of his stupid game.
>
> Here's a clue for you, raytard: You really shouldn't be so proud that the
> reality of Linux (a hanging/locking/freezing/glitchy mess) totally
> contradicts the lies of your fellow Linux "advocates".

Only in COLA does Linux work *perfectly* for all.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

In article <x8cipo6un8cc$.16o52lp3j98u1$.>,
Moshe Goldfarb <> wrote:
>
>Only in COLA does Linux work *perfectly* for all.
>

And in 100,000 machine rooms around the world. Linux is
caught in the same chicken-egg software thing that helped kill OS/2 on the
desktop, but you still can't build web farms on Windows...

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:14:58 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:

> the wharf rat wrote:
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> Only in COLA does Linux work *perfectly* for all.
>>
>> And in 100,000 machine rooms around the world. Linux is caught in the
>> same chicken-egg software thing that helped kill OS/2 on the desktop,
>> but you still can't build web farms on Windows...
>
> I still find it odd that when one buys a Windows computer, it no
> longer comes with installation media. If it gets borked, pony up for
> another copy. That has a sense of deliberateness, to apparently garner
> additional funds by requiring the purchaser to pony up additional bucks,
> not to mention additional support software like anti-virus. Windows
> Defender is not a top rated tool, wouldn't want it protecting my PC.

That's because most have the restore image on a hidden partition and all
that's needed is the kicker CD/DVD.
It's much faster that way, however I suppose the $5.00 extra for
installation media is a bit high for an unemployed Linux hack so I do
understand your plight.

Hey, at least the Windows companies SUPPORT their recovery media, unlike
Dell's half assed support of Ubuntu.

> OTOH, I am happy with my Ubuntu systems.

Is your Dell Sytems Ubuntu installation media not supported by Dell as
well?

http://linux.dell.com/wiki/index.php/Ubuntu_7.04

"These images are both unofficial Dell recovery media. They are not
officially Dell-supported. Do not call Dell Technical support with
questions about this image, or software installed by this image, as they
will not be able to help you. To get help, please send an email to the Dell
linux-desktops mailing list."

Hopefully you aren't having the Ubuntu lockup and freeze problems that
others are screaming about.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:32:05 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 22:30:40 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>> So proud of everyone for letting our local DooFuS spew on and on
>>> unanswered. Maybe eventually he'll tire of his stupid game.
>>
>> Here's a clue for you, raytard: You really shouldn't be so proud that
>> the reality of Linux (a hanging/locking/freezing/glitchy mess) totally
>> contradicts the lies of your fellow Linux "advocates".
>
> Only in COLA does Linux work *perfectly* for all.

Hey - and now we hear from DooFuS Jr. If you could read and comprehend,
you'd see that I never indicate the Linux works perfectly for all! It also
is not the disaster that DooFuS makes out.

>On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:32:05 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>> Only in COLA does Linux work *perfectly* for all.

Why bother with such obvious lies? I dare say no one believes a word
you say. Is there some kind of thrill to being a shameless, obvious,
liar?

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, the wharf rat
<>
wrote
on Wed, 9 Apr 2008 04:16:31 +0000 (UTC)
<fthfuu$m6f$>:
> In article <x8cipo6un8cc$.16o52lp3j98u1$.>,
> Moshe Goldfarb <> wrote:
>>
>>Only in COLA does Linux work *perfectly* for all.
>>
>
> And in 100,000 machine rooms around the world. Linux is
> caught in the same chicken-egg software thing that helped kill OS/2 on the
> desktop, but you still can't build web farms on Windows...

Yes you can, with additional hardware. $EMPLOYER ran a
webfarm for many years using IIS5. Many still do.

The standard webfarm, in fact, consists of several parts.

[1] A load distributor. This basically directs the request
to the least loaded webserver (or to a working webserver).

[2] A static webserver, possibly with proxying capability
for the dynamic application server. It can also put up
simple static forms.

[3] An application server, which can crunch the request
and send the pieces to various destinations, usually data
storage/retrieval..

[4] A data storage/retrieval system. This can be as
simple as a file tree but for most is an RDBMS that can
understand SQL.

Depending on application additional items may be required
(e.g., a mailserver to send stuff out). Ideally, all of
these except [1] are redundant units, and [1] would be
simple and reliable enough to not have to worry.

All of these except for [1] (a number of "pre-canned"
vendors exist for that) are implementable on Windows.
One asks as to how *well* and how *cheaply* (totally
different question!), but [2] and [3] are presumably
handled through IIS, [4] through MS SQL Server.

Of course in Linux [2] is Apache, [3] JBoss, Tomcat, or
Geronimo, and [4] can be a variety of things -- MySQL,
PostgreSQL, and Hypersonic (a component of JBoss) are
probably the cheapest in initial outlay, and Oracle, DB/2,
or SAS for the bigger companies.

(In a pinch JBoss and Tomcat can also handle static
web service.)

Or mix and match: IIS front end, Oracle back end, JBoss
perhaps in the middle, additional software on Windows to
handle the ajpv13 hookup. Personally, I'd not use IIS,
but IIS6 does handle PHP, and probably Java as well now
that Sun and Microsoft have kissed and made up.

--
#191,
Insert random misquote here.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <gt9vc5->,
The Ghost In The Machine <> wrote:
>>
>> but you still can't build web farms on Windows...
>
>Yes you can, with additional hardware. $EMPLOYER ran a

Ok, I should have said "You can't build a stable, manageable, cost-
effective, highly available, high throughput web farm on Windows".


>The standard webfarm, in fact, consists of several parts.

There's no need to split out static content. The same array that
handles dynamic content can serve that with very small incremental overhead.
It's not worth the complexity introduced to split it out. IOW, the
"application server" serves the ENTIRE application. That way you have
a homogenous supercluster of identical systems.


>[4] A data storage/retrieval system. This can be as
>simple as a file tree but for most is an RDBMS that can
>understand SQL.

IMHO the storage system is NOT part of the web farm and backs
both the database clusters AND the application server clusters.

>these except [1] are redundant units, and [1] would be
>simple and reliable enough to not have to worry.
>

On the scale you're talking, one load balancer, two or three
web servers, a database server, yeah, Windows could be made to work
if you wanted to spend a small fortune for software and administration.
In "real life" though there's NO WAY a single load balancer would be
deployed, no matter HOW "simple and reliable". And web farms have
hundreds if not thousands of application servers...

Of course these days everyone's going to virtualization which almost
makes host configurations a moot point...

>through MS SQL Server.

Shudder. 1/2 :-)

--

Cute "simple and reliable" story: I take a short term gig at
Joe's Big Web Company. Their server farm is front-ended by a pair of
6500's. One day I'm in the cage with these things and I notice that
they don't appear to be set up in a redundant configuration. I ask one
of the admins and he tells me "Oh, those Ciscos have been 100% reliable
so when we needed more ports we just set them up as two seperate units".
About 6 weeks later my pager went off on a Sunday morning. Half the network
was down. The half that was connected to the 6500 whose backplane had failed.

The moral of the story is even the **floor tiles** should be
redundant or you too will be spending Memorial day on the phone with
customer support...

chrisv wrote:
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>
>>> Only in COLA does Linux work *perfectly* for all.
>
> Why bother with such obvious lies? I dare say no one believes a
> word you say. Is there some kind of thrill to being a shameless,
> obvious, liar?

Please don't feed the trolls (Goldfarb).

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

CBFalconer <> writes:

> chrisv wrote:
>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Only in COLA does Linux work *perfectly* for all.
>>
>> Why bother with such obvious lies? I dare say no one believes a
>> word you say. Is there some kind of thrill to being a shameless,
>> obvious, liar?
>
> Please don't feed the trolls (Goldfarb).

Please fix your double signature.

Hadron <> writes:

> CBFalconer <> writes:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Only in COLA does Linux work *perfectly* for all.
>>>
>>> Why bother with such obvious lies? I dare say no one believes a
>>> word you say. Is there some kind of thrill to being a shameless,
>>> obvious, liar?
>>
>> Please don't feed the trolls (Goldfarb).
>
> Please fix your double signature.

Stop Press!

You did!

Well done!

(LOL)