My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:34:17 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
[color=blue]
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> One of the best references on this whole general topic is this:
>>>
>>> <http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html>[/color]
>>
>> Interesting quote from that article:
>>
>> "glibc 2.1 and later provide a generic implementation written for standards
>> compliance rather than performance."
>>
>> So even Linux doesn't have performance in mind when it wraps AIO with
>> standard functions.[/color]
>
> Another ignorant person who conflates GNU and Linux.[/color]

Gee, doesn't every call it GNU/Linux?
[color=blue]
> In any case, you don't need to use glibc's functions. Try libaio.[/color]

Then you're not using "portable" code, like Ignoramus insists.

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1226092348.22001.1@proxy02.news.clara.net...[color=blue]
> dennis@home wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>
>> "Maxwell Lol" <nospam@com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:878wrw8ijf.fsf@com.invalid...[color=darkred]
>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I don't need to see it.
>>>> If it does what he states it will make the data order somewhat mixed.
>>>> If he wants it debugged then he will have to post the code and agree
>>>> the fees.
>>>
>>> If he's doing select(), then he can handle several input and output
>>> files simultaneously.[/color]
>>
>> He could but that isn't what he said.
>> He said he could make his application simulate AIO by using several
>> threads to do whatever the application was doing before. A sure way to
>> screw up the order.[/color]
>
> Oh dear. You had better tell Zeus that. Thats what they do and they only
> manage to be a few orders of magnitude faster and less memory intensive
> than Apache. Now I know why whenever I went to te server for page A, I got
> page b instead. How come no one else has ever noticed it?[/color]

Stop being a pita and trying to fit an application into what he said.
That application doesn't matter what order they are done as individual
threads are only processing one connection.
Its when several threads are processing one connection which is what he said
would emulate AIO.

On 2008-11-07, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:52:46 +0000, Homer wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Erik Funkenbusch spake thusly:[color=darkred]
>>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 18:24:22 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>> When someone says there is a lack of apps for a platform, they do
>>>>> not mean there are *no* apps for that platform.
>>>>
>>>> True. They mean to present the fiction that Linux doesn't have
>>>> enough apps to be useful.
>>>
>>> No, they mean to present the opinion that it doesn't have enough of
>>> the kind of apps they want[/color]
>>
>> Given that the only "apps" the vast majority of people run is a Web
>> browser; an Email client (actually Web mail seems more popular these
>> days); a messaging client; and an office suite...[/color]
>
> A personal finance program that ocnnects to their bank, a tax program that
> lets them file their taxes electronically, greeting card makers from major[/color]

Granted the first 2 here have some validity.
[color=blue]
> greeting card companies, various games, Resume makers, business card
> makers, blah blah blah[/color]

These are just nonsense. These are the little pissant apps that
very few people care about. A "resume maker"? Yougottabekiddingme.
That's simple word processing / desktop publishing stuff that any
office suite has been able to handle since the Apple II.

[deletia]

While it is true that there are weird little speciality apps
out there that some people may find useful, you are doing a really
pisspoor job of identifying them.

--
|||
In a free market, the herd should be irrelevant. / | \

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
[url]http://www.usenet.com[/url]

On 2008-11-07, Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@arcor.de> wrote:[color=blue]
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>[color=green]
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:52:46 +0000, Homer wrote:[/color][/color][/color]
[deletia][color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> greeting card makers from major greeting card companies[/color]
>>
>> Weasel wording to shift tiny goalposts.
>>
>> Wonder if this one is any good?[/color]
>
> Didn't you know: Everyone is using these "killerapps" like "greeting cards"
>
> And one could probably bet that those run just fine under WINE (if there is
> someone with a need for such "killerapps").[/color]

The last time I did something of this nature, it was based off of
what was intended to be a print ready document that I got off of the
web. It wasn't quite what I wanted. I supposed I used it as a template.
I guess that's what you would call it.

Anyways, I just loaded it up in Gimp and made the changes I wanted
so that it was "addressed to the right audience" as it were.

[deletia]

--
|||
In a free market, the herd should be irrelevant. / | \

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
[url]http://www.usenet.com[/url]

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1226092187.22001.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
[color=blue]
> Remember that a web server is essentially connectionless, even though it
> uses TCP/IP. each socket is closed at the transfer of a page.[/color]

The browser opens and closes the connection and most modern browsers will
keep the connection open knowing that it is a big overhead to open and close
connections like they used to do in the dark ages.
[color=blue]
> So the web server and the underlying network layer do NOT maintain
> thousands of sockets for long periods: the number of open sockets is as
> many as the number of transfers going on.[/color]

Define long, they certainly maintain them for longer than the page transfer
time.

If you really wanted to make a fast web server then getting rid of the user-
kernel space separation would be the best start.
I have done applications running as STREAMS modules for this very purpose
and it really boosts the performance.

After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:34:17 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>[color=green]
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> One of the best references on this whole general topic is this:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html>
>>>
>>> Interesting quote from that article:
>>>
>>> "glibc 2.1 and later provide a generic implementation written for standards
>>> compliance rather than performance."
>>>
>>> So even Linux doesn't have performance in mind when it wraps AIO with
>>> standard functions.[/color]
>>
>> Another ignorant person who conflates GNU and Linux.[/color]
>
> Gee, doesn't every call it GNU/Linux?[/color]

Note the separator character between the two. Needed for proper parsing.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> In any case, you don't need to use glibc's functions. Try libaio.[/color]
>
> Then you're not using "portable" code, like Ignoramus insists.[/color]

Sometimes there's a trade-off between efficiency and portability.

Just ask Microsoft:

--
"Portability is for canoes."
-- Jim McCarthy, former Visual C++ team leader, in "Dynamics of Software
Development", Microsoft Press

After takin' a swig o' grog, Larry Page belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
[color=blue]
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>[color=green]
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:1226092187.22001.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Remember that a web server is essentially connectionless, even
>>> though it uses TCP/IP. each socket is closed at the transfer of a
>>> page.[/color]
>>
>> The browser opens and closes the connection and most modern browsers
>> will keep the connection open knowing that it is a big overhead to
>> open and close connections like they used to do in the dark ages.[/color]
>
> No they don't. If they did most servers would saturate in no time at
> all.
>[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> So the web server and the underlying network layer do NOT maintain
>>> thousands of sockets for long periods: the number of open sockets is
>>> as many as the number of transfers going on.[/color]
>>
>> Define long, they certainly maintain them for longer than the page
>> transfer time.[/color]
>
> They most certainly do not.[/color]

Don't confuse MD5 Dennis (aka "dumbass@home") with facts.

--
Pryor's Observation:
How long you live has nothing to do
with how long you are going to be dead.

"Larry Page" <pageme1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gf2ft7$vti$3@registered.motzarella.org...[color=blue]
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>[color=green]
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:1226092187.22001.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Remember that a web server is essentially connectionless, even
>>> though it uses TCP/IP. each socket is closed at the transfer of a
>>> page.[/color]
>>
>> The browser opens and closes the connection and most modern browsers
>> will keep the connection open knowing that it is a big overhead to
>> open and close connections like they used to do in the dark ages.[/color]
>
> No they don't. If they did most servers would saturate in no time at
> all.
>[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> So the web server and the underlying network layer do NOT maintain
>>> thousands of sockets for long periods: the number of open sockets is
>>> as many as the number of transfers going on.[/color]
>>
>> Define long, they certainly maintain them for longer than the page
>> transfer time.[/color]
>
> They most certainly do not.[/color]

Open a browser, load a page and then do a netstat.
Tell me how long it is before the browser connections are open before they
close then.

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
[color=blue]
> "Larry Page" <pageme1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gf2ft7$vti$3@registered.motzarella.org...[color=green]
>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:1226092187.22001.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>>
>>>> Remember that a web server is essentially connectionless, even
>>>> though it uses TCP/IP. each socket is closed at the transfer of a
>>>> page.
>>>
>>> The browser opens and closes the connection and most modern browsers
>>> will keep the connection open knowing that it is a big overhead to
>>> open and close connections like they used to do in the dark ages.[/color]
>>
>> No they don't. If they did most servers would saturate in no time at
>> all.
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>> So the web server and the underlying network layer do NOT maintain
>>>> thousands of sockets for long periods: the number of open sockets is
>>>> as many as the number of transfers going on.
>>>
>>> Define long, they certainly maintain them for longer than the page
>>> transfer time.[/color]
>>
>> They most certainly do not.[/color]
>
> Open a browser, load a page and then do a netstat.
> Tell me how long it is before the browser connections are open before
> they close then.[/color]

http is a stateless and connectionless protocol.

State is created using cookies and similar.

https is a different kettle of fish.

Most websites are http based. Most do not leave connections open.

Sorry, but you are wrong I think.

"Larry Page" <pageme1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gf2hng$lqp$1@registered.motzarella.org...[color=blue]
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>[color=green]
>> "Larry Page" <pageme1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gf2ft7$vti$3@registered.motzarella.org...[color=darkred]
>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>>> news:1226092187.22001.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>>>
>>>>> Remember that a web server is essentially connectionless, even
>>>>> though it uses TCP/IP. each socket is closed at the transfer of a
>>>>> page.
>>>>
>>>> The browser opens and closes the connection and most modern browsers
>>>> will keep the connection open knowing that it is a big overhead to
>>>> open and close connections like they used to do in the dark ages.
>>>
>>> No they don't. If they did most servers would saturate in no time at
>>> all.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So the web server and the underlying network layer do NOT maintain
>>>>> thousands of sockets for long periods: the number of open sockets is
>>>>> as many as the number of transfers going on.
>>>>
>>>> Define long, they certainly maintain them for longer than the page
>>>> transfer time.
>>>
>>> They most certainly do not.[/color]
>>
>> Open a browser, load a page and then do a netstat.
>> Tell me how long it is before the browser connections are open before
>> they close then.[/color]
>
> http is a stateless and connectionless protocol.
>
> State is created using cookies and similar.
>
> https is a different kettle of fish.
>
> Most websites are http based. Most do not leave connections open.
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong I think.
>
>[/color]

I think you are just thinking in human time spans while I am thinking in
machine time spans.
They don't stay open for minutes at a time but they do stay open a lot
longer than a transfer requires.
They are open for about 9 seconds longer than they need to be on my machine.

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
[color=blue]
> "Larry Page" <pageme1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gf2hng$lqp$1@registered.motzarella.org...[color=green]
>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "Larry Page" <pageme1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gf2ft7$vti$3@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1226092187.22001.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember that a web server is essentially connectionless, even
>>>>>> though it uses TCP/IP. each socket is closed at the transfer of a
>>>>>> page.
>>>>>
>>>>> The browser opens and closes the connection and most modern browsers
>>>>> will keep the connection open knowing that it is a big overhead to
>>>>> open and close connections like they used to do in the dark ages.
>>>>
>>>> No they don't. If they did most servers would saturate in no time at
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So the web server and the underlying network layer do NOT maintain
>>>>>> thousands of sockets for long periods: the number of open sockets is
>>>>>> as many as the number of transfers going on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Define long, they certainly maintain them for longer than the page
>>>>> transfer time.
>>>>
>>>> They most certainly do not.
>>>
>>> Open a browser, load a page and then do a netstat.
>>> Tell me how long it is before the browser connections are open before
>>> they close then.[/color]
>>
>> http is a stateless and connectionless protocol.
>>
>> State is created using cookies and similar.
>>
>> https is a different kettle of fish.
>>
>> Most websites are http based. Most do not leave connections open.
>>
>> Sorry, but you are wrong I think.
>>
>>[/color]
>
> I think you are just thinking in human time spans while I am thinking
> in machine time spans.
> They don't stay open for minutes at a time but they do stay open a lot
> longer than a transfer requires.[/color]

No they don't. The server closes the connection after each
transfer. If it didn't then the server of a busy web site would saturate
in no time at all.

Anyone? This has always been my understanding.
[color=blue]
> They are open for about 9 seconds longer than they need to be on my
> machine.[/color]

That might be so.

But define "they" and "need to be".

"Larry Page" <pageme1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gf2io9$uf4$1@registered.motzarella.org...[color=blue]
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>[color=green]
>> "Larry Page" <pageme1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gf2hng$lqp$1@registered.motzarella.org...[color=darkred]
>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Larry Page" <pageme1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gf2ft7$vti$3@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1226092187.22001.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember that a web server is essentially connectionless, even
>>>>>>> though it uses TCP/IP. each socket is closed at the transfer of a
>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The browser opens and closes the connection and most modern browsers
>>>>>> will keep the connection open knowing that it is a big overhead to
>>>>>> open and close connections like they used to do in the dark ages.
>>>>>
>>>>> No they don't. If they did most servers would saturate in no time at
>>>>> all.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the web server and the underlying network layer do NOT maintain
>>>>>>> thousands of sockets for long periods: the number of open sockets is
>>>>>>> as many as the number of transfers going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Define long, they certainly maintain them for longer than the page
>>>>>> transfer time.
>>>>>
>>>>> They most certainly do not.
>>>>
>>>> Open a browser, load a page and then do a netstat.
>>>> Tell me how long it is before the browser connections are open before
>>>> they close then.
>>>
>>> http is a stateless and connectionless protocol.
>>>
>>> State is created using cookies and similar.
>>>
>>> https is a different kettle of fish.
>>>
>>> Most websites are http based. Most do not leave connections open.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but you are wrong I think.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>> I think you are just thinking in human time spans while I am thinking
>> in machine time spans.
>> They don't stay open for minutes at a time but they do stay open a lot
>> longer than a transfer requires.[/color]
>
> No they don't. The server closes the connection after each
> transfer. If it didn't then the server of a busy web site would saturate
> in no time at all.
>
> Anyone? This has always been my understanding.
>[color=green]
>> They are open for about 9 seconds longer than they need to be on my
>> machine.[/color]
>
> That might be so.
>
> But define "they" and "need to be".[/color]

Well a page like news.bbc.co.uk loads in about 1 second.

If I get around to it I will put an analyzer on the network and see what
packets are sent.
It won't be today though as I have other things to do.
You can do it if you want.[color=blue]
>[/color]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:19:08 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
[color=blue]
> On 2008-11-07, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:52:46 +0000, Homer wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Erik Funkenbusch spake thusly:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 18:24:22 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> When someone says there is a lack of apps for a platform, they do
>>>>>> not mean there are *no* apps for that platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> True. They mean to present the fiction that Linux doesn't have
>>>>> enough apps to be useful.
>>>>
>>>> No, they mean to present the opinion that it doesn't have enough of
>>>> the kind of apps they want
>>>
>>> Given that the only "apps" the vast majority of people run is a Web
>>> browser; an Email client (actually Web mail seems more popular these
>>> days); a messaging client; and an office suite...[/color]
>>
>> A personal finance program that ocnnects to their bank, a tax program that
>> lets them file their taxes electronically, greeting card makers from major[/color]
>
> Granted the first 2 here have some validity.
>[color=green]
>> greeting card companies, various games, Resume makers, business card
>> makers, blah blah blah[/color]
>
> These are just nonsense. These are the little pissant apps that
> very few people care about. A "resume maker"? Yougottabekiddingme.
> That's simple word processing / desktop publishing stuff that any
> office suite has been able to handle since the Apple II.[/color]

Let's check out Amazon's top sellers.

If you discount OSX Software, OS's, Office suites, and antivirus, here's
what you see:

#3 Quickbooks Pro
#4 Adobe Photoshop Elements
#6 Paint Shop Pro Photo X2
#8 Microsoft Streets and Trips
#9 Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 Ultimate
#12 Rosetta Stone Span (Latin America) 1,2,3
#13 TurboTax Deluxe Federal + State + eFile
#15 Dragon Naturally Speaking 10 Preferred
#16 Photoshop Elements & Premier Elements 7
#17 SpongeBob Squarepants Typing
#18 Photoshop Elements 6 (older version)
#25 Adobe Photoshop CS4 Upgrade
#26 Quickbooks Pro 2009 3 User
#27 Dragon 10 Standard
#30 Family Tree Maker
#31 Quickbooks Pro 2008
#32 Quicken Home & Business 2009
#34 Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 Upgrade
#35 Acronis True Image 11 Home
#37 Sony Vegas Movie Studio 9 Platinum Pro Pack
#38 Crazy Machines: The Wacky Contraptions Game
#40 Rosetta Stone Spanish (Latin America) 1
#41 Corel VideoStudio Pro X2
#42 Zoombinis Logical Journey
#46 Quicken Deluxe 2009
#47 Hoyle Card Games 2009
#48 Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing Deluxe 20
#49 Reader Rabbit
#50 More Rosetta Stone
..... more of the same
#64 Autocad LT 2009
#70 H&R Block Taxcut
#71 Adobe Dreamweaver CS4
#75 Read Rabbit Math
#77 ColorVision Spyder2 Express
#83 Oregon Trail, 5th Edition
#87 Family Tree Maker 2009 Platinum

Etc...


So, the interesting thing about this is that virtually every one of those
"best sellers" has no equivelent version for Linux.

And you're going to pretend that Linux has all the apps anyone wants?
[color=blue]
> While it is true that there are weird little speciality apps
> out there that some people may find useful, you are doing a really
> pisspoor job of identifying them.[/color]

The point is, there are tons of those apps that people have, and with no
altneratives on Linux, why are people supposed to switch?

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:07:10 +0100, Larry Page wrote:
[color=blue]
> http is a stateless and connectionless protocol.[/color]

Half right. It's stateless, but not connectionless.
[color=blue]
> Most websites are http based. Most do not leave connections open.[/color]

HTTP 1.1 provides for "keep-alives"
[color=blue]
> Sorry, but you are wrong I think.[/color]

He's not.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:24:40 +0100, Larry Page wrote:
[color=blue]
> No they don't. The server closes the connection after each
> transfer. If it didn't then the server of a busy web site would saturate
> in no time at all.
>
> Anyone? This has always been my understanding.[/color]

[url]http://www.io.com/~maus/HttpKeepAlive.html[/url]

After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:19:08 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> Let's check out Amazon's top sellers.
>
> If you discount OSX Software, OS's, Office suites, and antivirus, here's
> what you see:
>
> #3 Quickbooks Pro
> #4 Adobe Photoshop Elements
> #6 Paint Shop Pro Photo X2
> #8 Microsoft Streets and Trips
> #9 Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 Ultimate
> #12 Rosetta Stone Span (Latin America) 1,2,3
> #13 TurboTax Deluxe Federal + State + eFile
> #15 Dragon Naturally Speaking 10 Preferred
> #16 Photoshop Elements & Premier Elements 7
> #17 SpongeBob Squarepants Typing
> #18 Photoshop Elements 6 (older version)
> #25 Adobe Photoshop CS4 Upgrade
> #26 Quickbooks Pro 2009 3 User
> #27 Dragon 10 Standard
> #30 Family Tree Maker
> #31 Quickbooks Pro 2008
> #32 Quicken Home & Business 2009
> #34 Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 Upgrade
> #35 Acronis True Image 11 Home
> #37 Sony Vegas Movie Studio 9 Platinum Pro Pack
> #38 Crazy Machines: The Wacky Contraptions Game
> #40 Rosetta Stone Spanish (Latin America) 1
> #41 Corel VideoStudio Pro X2
> #42 Zoombinis Logical Journey
> #46 Quicken Deluxe 2009
> #47 Hoyle Card Games 2009
> #48 Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing Deluxe 20
> #49 Reader Rabbit
> #50 More Rosetta Stone
> .... more of the same
> #64 Autocad LT 2009
> #70 H&R Block Taxcut
> #71 Adobe Dreamweaver CS4
> #75 Read Rabbit Math
> #77 ColorVision Spyder2 Express
> #83 Oregon Trail, 5th Edition
> #87 Family Tree Maker 2009 Platinum
>
> So, the interesting thing about this is that virtually every one of those
> "best sellers" has no equivelent version for Linux.[/color]

Bull****. Unless you're moving the goalpost to Saturn, and demanding that
the company that provides the Windows version be the one providing the
equivalent functionality.
[color=blue]
> And you're going to pretend that Linux has all the apps anyone wants?[/color]

Your talking titles. We're talking tasks.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> While it is true that there are weird little speciality apps
>> out there that some people may find useful, you are doing a really
>> pisspoor job of identifying them.[/color]
>
> The point is, there are tons of those apps that people have, and with no
> altneratives on Linux, why are people supposed to switch?[/color]

Because, Erik, there /are/ alternatives. Written by /other/ companies or
people.

--
Simon's Law:
Everything put together falls apart sooner or later.

After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:07:10 +0100, Larry Page wrote:
>[color=green]
>> http is a stateless and connectionless protocol.[/color]
>
> Half right. It's stateless, but not connectionless.
>[color=green]
>> Most websites are http based. Most do not leave connections open.[/color]
>
> HTTP 1.1 provides for "keep-alives"
>[color=green]
>> Sorry, but you are wrong I think.[/color]
>
> He's not.[/color]

Sure he's wrong. HTTP connections are normally transitory. He claimed they
were all permanent.

--
You will stop at nothing to reach your objective, but only because your
brakes are defective.

After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:24:40 +0100, Larry Page wrote:
>[color=green]
>> No they don't. The server closes the connection after each
>> transfer. If it didn't then the server of a busy web site would saturate
>> in no time at all.
>>
>> Anyone? This has always been my understanding.[/color]
>
> [url]http://www.io.com/~maus/HttpKeepAlive.html[/url][/color]

Why don't you just run netstat for yourself?

On Linux, try

$ netstat -c --inet

and watch it while you access various web sites.

--
Even more amazing was the realization that God has Internet access. I
wonder if He has a full newsfeed?
-- Matt Welsh

On 2008-11-08, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:19:08 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> These are just nonsense. These are the little pissant apps that
>> very few people care about. A "resume maker"? Yougottabekiddingme.
>> That's simple word processing / desktop publishing stuff that any
>> office suite has been able to handle since the Apple II.[/color]
>
> Let's check out Amazon's top sellers.
>
> If you discount OSX Software, OS's, Office suites, and antivirus, here's
> what you see:
>
> #3 Quickbooks Pro
> #4 Adobe Photoshop Elements
> #6 Paint Shop Pro Photo X2
> #8 Microsoft Streets and Trips
> #9 Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 Ultimate
> #12 Rosetta Stone Span (Latin America) 1,2,3
> #13 TurboTax Deluxe Federal + State + eFile
> #15 Dragon Naturally Speaking 10 Preferred
> #16 Photoshop Elements & Premier Elements 7
> #17 SpongeBob Squarepants Typing
> #18 Photoshop Elements 6 (older version)
> #25 Adobe Photoshop CS4 Upgrade
> #26 Quickbooks Pro 2009 3 User
> #27 Dragon 10 Standard
> #30 Family Tree Maker
> #31 Quickbooks Pro 2008
> #32 Quicken Home & Business 2009
> #34 Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 Upgrade
> #35 Acronis True Image 11 Home
> #37 Sony Vegas Movie Studio 9 Platinum Pro Pack
> #38 Crazy Machines: The Wacky Contraptions Game
> #40 Rosetta Stone Spanish (Latin America) 1
> #41 Corel VideoStudio Pro X2
> #42 Zoombinis Logical Journey
> #46 Quicken Deluxe 2009
> #47 Hoyle Card Games 2009
> #48 Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing Deluxe 20
> #49 Reader Rabbit
> #50 More Rosetta Stone
> .... more of the same
> #64 Autocad LT 2009
> #70 H&R Block Taxcut
> #71 Adobe Dreamweaver CS4
> #75 Read Rabbit Math
> #77 ColorVision Spyder2 Express
> #83 Oregon Trail, 5th Edition
> #87 Family Tree Maker 2009 Platinum
>
> Etc...
>
>
> So, the interesting thing about this is that virtually every one of those
> "best sellers" has no equivelent version for Linux.[/color]

Not surprising. The MICROS~1 world has conditioned people to think they
want those things. The reality is they can do without most of them and
get the same kinds of things done for free using names they're less
familiar with and/or with a combination of programs.

Besides, that list doesn't mention numbers other than the order of most
to least demand. Number 1 could be a few dozen, a few hundred, a few
thousand or a few million. You could probably get close to some number
with the customer reviews, but that number won't represent all
buyers.Not every customer will review things, and not every review is
guaranteed to be written by a customer who bought it from Amazon.
[color=blue]
> And you're going to pretend that Linux has all the apps anyone wants?[/color]

And you're going to pretend your list proves anything other than that's
the order of demand at Amazon (updated hourly) for certain titles?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> While it is true that there are weird little speciality apps
>> out there that some people may find useful, you are doing a really
>> pisspoor job of identifying them.[/color]
>
> The point is, there are tons of those apps that people have, and with no
> altneratives on Linux, why are people supposed to switch?[/color]

They're not "supposed to" switch. They *CAN* switch and get most
everything they normally do done. For the oddball things (like the
Spongebob and Zoombini items in your list) there's Crossover, Cedega
and plain-jane wine.

No _need_ for Windross. Unless the user likes being punished and
abused.

--
Frontpage: Allowing more people who can't design to be on the web.

On 2008-11-08, Chris Ahlstrom <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote:[color=blue]
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>[color=green]
>> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:07:10 +0100, Larry Page wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> http is a stateless and connectionless protocol.[/color]
>>
>> Half right. It's stateless, but not connectionless.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Most websites are http based. Most do not leave connections open.[/color]
>>
>> HTTP 1.1 provides for "keep-alives"
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Sorry, but you are wrong I think.[/color]
>>
>> He's not.[/color]
>
> Sure he's wrong. HTTP connections are normally transitory. He claimed they
> were all permanent.
>[/color]

They could be semi-permanent, though it does not lead to great
efficiencies.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
[url]http://improve-usenet.org/[/url]