Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 08:13:51 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, "Brad Knowles" <brad.knowles@skynet.be> Cc: <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: A breath of fresh air.. Message-ID: <01b101c17fb7$e45bf8e0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <0112071641320B.01380@stinky.akitanet.co.uk><000b01c17f42$c23ab140$0a0 0000a@atkielski.com><3C110351.4748B559@duth.gr><005001c17f6c$e60c0ef0$ 0a00000a@atkielski.com><15377.17350.796336.801464@guru.mired.org><0069 01c17f70$19a2f820$0a00000a@atkielski.com><15377.18218.830731.410656@gu ru.mired.org><008101c17f9a$1a4a4290$0a00000a@atkielski.com><15377.3661 7.358466.76379@guru.mired.org><00ab01c17f9d$0bde8510$0a00000a@atkielsk i.com> <15377.37214.213789.306335@guru.mired.org> <00c901c17f9f$e80a95e0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <a05101009b83750a740f1@[10.0.1.16]> <013901c17fac$b23dc6a0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <a05101017b837621e58c4@[10.0.1.16]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brad writes: > Regardless of what you may think, I have spoken > to people who have first-hand knowledge of precisely > such a "dark conspiracy". Name them, and describe the conspiracy. > Indeed, if there weren't such a conspiracy, > then there never would have been a need for > the US government to file an anti-trust suit > against the company. There never was any such need. The government acted in response to intense lobbying by some of Microsoft's competitors. > People are irrational, I've said that before. I've seen no evidence of that. > Some software explicitly disables standard built-in > cooling mechanisms that are found in certain types > of hardware, with the result that the system runs > faster but is less reliable. Why would disabling a cooling mechanism make the hardware run faster? Can you give a specific example? Does Windows do this? If so, where? > However, this is totally unrelated to the fact > that a lot of PC hardware is inherently unreliable. Then why did you mention it? Additionally, how does the inherent reliability (or lack thereof) of PC hardware have anything to do with software _making_ hardware unreliable, which was your original assertion? > Yes, if you take care to specify higher-quality > components that are known to work together well, > you can build a very reliable machine. Even if you are running Windows? But didn't you assert that machines running Windows were unreliable purely as a consequence of running Windows? > Not at all true. I can only go by what Mac users say, as I don't use Macs myself these days. > ... there probably isn't a single NT server in the > world that has been up and running more than two > hundred days straight. I know of many servers that have run for years at a time. > Now, Macs don't have that kind of uptime, but > that's because most people turn their Mac > off at night when they leave. That can also be said of Windows, and it is no more or less true. > Obviously, the surveys you've seen have not > accounted for all the possible variables > that are involved. That is, they don't show the numbers that you'd prefer to see. I'd prefer to see different numbers, too, but there they are. > In my many years of experience, I would say that > AOL is very representative of the server market. How many years of experience do you have, and how did this relate to AOL's use of servers, and what leads you to believe that AOL is representative? > How many decades of experience do you have that > you'd like to stack up against mine ... I do not engage in credentialism, as it is not relevant to a well-reasoned argument. > The very fact that you are willing to allow for > this statement proves that this kind of information > was not made available to you prior to your looking > at that survey. Uh ... yes--that's why I made the statement. As I said, there was no contradictory evidence. > In my experience, only if people are trying to > hide something to they avoid telling you about > the potential weaknesses or biases in the underlying > information they have available to you ... Then my spontaneous admission that information is lacking would seem to bode well for my honesty and candor. > ... which means that the Netcraft people probably > have something to hide. I'm not sure that Netcraft produced the numbers that I saw. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01b101c17fb7$e45bf8e0$0a00000a>