Hear, Hear! Well said! I was tempted to say that the other author was simply a non-believer.
You provide clarity of thought and a singular vision. Happy Holidays, Rich Smrcina Sytek Services, Inc. Milwaukee, WI [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Catch the WAVV! Stay for Requirements and the Free for All! Update your S/390 skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2002 in Cincinnati (Fort Mitchell, KY). April 12-16, 2002 For details see http://www.wavv.org One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:07 AM Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ? > > Nope, but I'm free to go buy some piece of hardware that isn't tied up > > with intellectual property "issues". > > That's always your decision to make. If the objective is complete purity of > essence, then we can sit around and theorize or select a different solution > that meets the immediate needs. > We can also try to do something constructive that convinces IBM to work with > us. It's about the same amount of effort, and IMHO the idea of using some > understanding of the way IBM's internal mindset works to effect change is > ultimately more useful. > > > > In other words, is the mainframe > > really worth all of this? From the testing I've done, I'm not > > convinced... > > a cluster full of inexpensive Intel boxes seems faster and > > cheaper to me, > > and > > doesn't carry the baggage of hardware written to run an OS that is > > completely foreign to Linux (OS/390). For example, with a > > cluster of PCs, > > each machine can have *GASP!* a console that actually works with vi. > > If that solution is more effective for you, then you're free to use it at > the costs of any choice. Like I tell the content control fascists who want > to water down anything on the Internet to the level of pre-digested > pre-composted baby food, "You have the right to use an off switch and the > ability to install filtering software on your PC to block anything that you > don't want to see. Exercise that right." Me, I'm more interested in fixing > the problem than complaining about it. > > > This could be a temporary solution, until some bug in the > > binary bit of code > > cause it a) not to build properly or b) not to function properly. > > Then we are right back to bitching and IBM to fix it. > > Make up your mind: do you want a perfect world or working network drivers? > If a perfect world, you're going to be waiting a while. If you want working > network drivers, then let's get to it and quit whining about it. > > > > I'd like to ask the IBMers to see whether this would be > > > possible. I'll work > > > on getting backing, or arranging a resource of my own. > > > > I would applaude such an effort as a stop-gap measure, it's not the > > ideal situation though. > > See above. Whining doesn't fix the problem. Putting up resources does. Your > call -- part of the problem, or part of the solution? > > -- db
