Re: [cobalt-users] anonymous ftp on raq 4I

["E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:23:55 -0800
> From: Paul Jacobs <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Try 500 real orders a week, and 1000's of hits just browsing...
> I am trying to show you that it is possible to run access in a production 
> machine and it will respond in a timely manner to you, granted SQL is far 
> faster, but for small sites SQL is way over kill.
> Now take you head out of your ass and put a load on the site above if you 
> don't belive me.

Well, let's see... thousands of hits each week means several
hundred per day.  Maybe one per minute on average.  Yes, Access
can handle that.

I said scalability, Paul.  Let's see Access handle five or ten
simultaneous connections with multiple readers and writers.

For small projects, I like BDB.  Skip the SQL overhead and
interact directly with the indices and fields.

> The same can be said about some test's run with red hat and windows 2K side 
> by side...
> Red hat cryes fowl when windows 2K wins, saying " we did not "tune" it right.

*shrug*

I frankly don't care for either.

The thing is that you and the average "Penguinista" (whatever)
are both alike:  Swearing up and down that your OS is _the_ best,
refusing to acknowledge where the other is superior.

Sure, Unix needs some finer-grained ACLs.  FreeBSD (not sure
where Linux is now) needs an architecture overhaul when it comes
to SMP.  But I can make do with chroot()ed apps and hope that I'm
limited in userland until those changes come.  And, gee, I'll
even admit where improvement is needed.

> >And, quite frankly, you're claims of "you have to know what
> >you're doing" amuse me.  Learn Unix.
> 
> Why when windows can do most of what unix can?

Sorry, I like grep and sed too much.  And the ability to compute
a file's MD5 hash with a single command.  Kernel securelevels are
a handy feature [of BSD].  Kernel queues.  Accept filters.
S/Key.  Kernel selection at boot time over a serial console.
Configurable ld.so path.  And it can all be done remotely.
No wonder that uptimes in excess of a year are commonplace.

Selecting the number of network mbufs, process limits, maximum
number of file descriptors... tunable quantum...

Paul, you can barely turn on a RaQ.  I find it amusing that you
make claims as to a real Unix box's abilities.  How would you
know?

And, to think, more than ten years ago I poked fun of Unix.
Never would I use it.  But at least I didn't claim to be
authoritative on its "weaknesses".

> >Paul, ditch your RaQ.  I bet a couple dozen people on here will
> >make you an offer.  Nobody's forcing you to use it.
> 
> Your right, but people allways tell me why don't you give it a chance??, so 
> I have and this is the result... very unhappy.

No, you had your mind made up from the start that you weren't
going to like the RaQ[*].  That's hardly giving it a chance.  You
have been playing with your Cobalt for how long?  Two weeks
perhaps?  Ever hired any network experts with a month and a half
of experience?

[*] I'm not terribly fond of them either, actually.  But I try to
    keep my criticisms realistic.

Use Unix for as long as you have used NT.  Invest the same amount
of effort.  Be as open minded.

Quite frankly, I'd prefer that you stuck with MS.  This list
would have less noise.  And regardless of what OS you use, I'll
keep using and making money with the one that I've found best
from broad experience.

How much are you asking for your Raq?


Eddy

Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence
--

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>
To: blacklist@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.  Do NOT
send mail to <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>, or you are likely to be blocked.