Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #27 Tue, 4 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Which Linux should I try? ("Joe Kiser")
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Aaron Kulkis)
[OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm (Aaron
Kulkis)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:10:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Codifex Maximus) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>While I haven't been to alt.os.linux.mandrake, I'm sure there is an army
>of people there helping that army of people who need help.
At the moment there's confusion as many people say "it works for me" and
just as many say "not for me".
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Joe Kiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux should I try?
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 15:15:16 -0400
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> You can try them all. It's cheap.
>
> For the price you'd pay for ONE copy of Windows 2000, you can have a copy
> of all those mentioned PLUS debian.
I paid three dollars.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:17:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8js6lj$lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>No, he is NOT! Linux is an OS kernel and KDE is a Unix desktop Developed
>by DIFFERENT people, though cooperating they are INDEPENDENT of each
>other. The Linux (being a KERNEL) servers an different function than KDE
>the desktop. Linux CAN and does run WITHOUT KDE and KDE can and DOES run
>without Linux. They are independent of each other! I would submit a
>Linux bug to the Linux development team and a KDE to the KDE
>development team!
Avtually I was referring to calling it a lie, not KDE bug = Linux bug.
>Using your logic, any application that RUNS on Windows that has a bug
>means that Windows has that bug! after all, KDE is only an APPLICATION
>that runs on Linux!
See above.
>Did you check the logs???? You claim an absolute! that means that there
>can be NO error recorded ANY where! Or were you just being unclear
>again??? Being so unclear that I could say "if there was no error, how
>did the application crash?"
Yep, checked the logs. No error reported. No indication that kfm crashed.
>What's that got to do with the computer that meets *MY* needs??? windows
>lags FAR, FAR behind in the FLEXIBILITY that I need! You claimed an
>absolute again when you claimed that Linux is lagging behind Windows.
>(what windows? 3.1??? you're unclear again) You must now prove that
>Linux lags behind EVERY VERSION of windows in EVERY situation. Not
>flashing an error message if trivial compared to what it takes to run on
>- Alpha's, 390's, macs, Intel, SGI. Windows (ALL VERSIONS) lags behind
>here! Super computers??? Going to Linux or Unix windows (all versions)
>lag behinde here!!! So your statement that "Linux is lagging behind
>windows" is FALSE and MISLEADING!
Blimey, if you carry on like that, you'll burst a blood vessel. Calm down.
Would it help if I qualified my statement? As in:
"The Linux desktop lags behind Windows"
Is that better?
>wow how nice of you!
Yes aren't I just.
>Pete, Are you going for the troll of the year award???
Are you going for the insult of the year award? Stop calling me troll and
maybe I'll stop using "Linux" so casually.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:18:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hear! Hear!
Pete
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:22:42 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting abraxas from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 2 Jul 2000 13:22:47 GMT
> [...]
> >Solaris is an exceedingly specialized UNIX, linux is not UNIX at
> >all. Linux is 'gnu-nux'.
>
> Obviously a matter of perspective as well as opinion. I think AIX might
> count as a "specialized Unix", but I think you'd have to go to terminal
AIX is a BSD-derived product that was written "to the letter" of
POSIX compliance, but certainly not the spirit of same.
It's ENTIRE purpose was to achieve customer lock-in, specifically
through the use of needlessly reformatted and renamed configuration
files.
Example: the "stanza" format.
When I vi /etc/fstab on a normal system, I can see the ENTIRE
layout of all filesystems.
With IBM's idiotic stanza format, at the very best, I can get 4 or 5
filesystems displayed on my screen at one time.
But...from IBM's perspective... once you have all of those shellscripts
written for their perverse config files, then... you have to start
from scratch the moment you bring in *ANY* other vendor's Unix box.
Customer lock-in is what IBM is all about. That's why their
mainframe systems are the ONLY ones in the world using EBCDIC
rather than ASCII...
If you want to migrate from an IBM mainframe, NOT ONLY do you buy
a new computer... NOooooooo.. you've gotta come up with all new
I/O equipment...AND, of course,... figure out how you're gonna
migrate the damn EBCDIC to ASCII (since the control codes have
different nuances...)
> servers or something before you could call something "exceedingly
> specialized Unix". Certainly Solaris isn't necessarily designed as a
> general user's OS; it is a bit more specialized (but just a bit) than a
> typical Unix distro for professional workstations. But only the
> internals people would care to dissect whether any one Unix is UNIX or
> something else.
>
> >If you do not know exactly why you need solaris, then you do not
> >need solaris.
>
> That, I love. Beautifully put, and almost unarguably self-evident.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:27:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti) wrote:
> I remember the first time I saw a DOS prompt as being the single
> most confusing experience I ever had with a computer. I grew up
> on the TRS80, Aquarius, TI/994A, C64, Apple II, and Amiga. I
> though almost all computers came with a BASIC interpreter for a
> shell (not that I knew what a shell was). I was similarly
> dumbfounded by the Amiga CLI, which I never did learn to use.
COMMAND.COM is no less intuitive than BASIC, just different.
Confusion is when you try to use something different and
all your assumptions break. Some of my most confusing
experiences have involved MacOS. I know DOS forwards,
backwards, inside-out, upside-down, and sideways. I'm
comfortable with Windows (except when it decides to be
contrary in random ways...) I like Unix. I can deal
with VMS okay (although I NEED the manuals). MacOS is
fundamentally unlike any of these, and it confuses me.
Emacs *used* to confuse me. Then I learnt a bit of
elisp and wrote code to make it behave normally (i.e.,
the way I expect editors to behave -- ESPECIALLY in
the cursor movement department) and now it's great.
bash is on my to-learn list, along with Python and C.
Intuitive? What does that even mean? It means it
does what you'd expect, right? But then we should
call Perl intuitive, and that makes no sense whatever.
(I like Perl, BTW; that isn't my point.)
> The DOS prompt can't compare favorably to good ol' bash -- I've
> certainly never seen anyone call it intuitive before.
COMMAND.COM is at least as intuitive as bash. It is,
however, less functional in several ways. The worst
limitation I've banged against repeatedly is the
absolute limit on command-line length.
Of course, if you grew up on sh then COMMAND.COM is not
intuitive. If, however, you've been using DOS, then
it's way more intuitive than bash. I don't think it's
inherently more or less intuitive as such.
> There are some good clones of DOS Edit that might be useful for
> those with DOS experience.
There are also some clones of Notepad (essentially) for
Linux (which makes me want to vommit, but nevermind me).
> >(word format for documents, etc) as the linux apps available
> >aren't microsoft compatible.
>
> Some are.
Doesn't StarOffice try to be able to read several MS formats?
> >Game support is poor. There are very few games that run under
> >linux.
>
> There are a lot of games that run under Linux. The overlap with
> Windows isn't very great though.
There are gazillions of games that run under Windows, but most
of them aren't worth your time to download. There are a very
few very excellent games for Windows, same as for any other
system.
> I love LILO and haven't had any trouble with it.
The trouble with LILO is that it's not obvious how to get
it to boot a different OS than the default. The original
poster was talking about building computers for people
who haven't owned one before, and for that I'd recommend
a boot menu instead, like OSBS or something.
> I couldn't believe the skimpy book that came with Windows 95.
I was surprised it came with anything at all. I expected
a certificate and a brochure. Granted, the book that I
got is not substantially more useful than a brochure, but
it's longer than I figured it would be.
I still have my ITT DOS manual. I seldom need to consult
it anymore, mostly for obscure stuff like the less-used
features of DEBUG, but I wouldn't want to be without it.
I don't know how people use Windows who don't have one.
The online help features (both HELP.COM and *.hlp) are
pathetic and weak.
> Very little information. My pet peeve with Windows though is that
> they include many legacy apps and console applications with
> little or no documentation.
You need a DOS manual.
> Anyone know how to work the Windows
> 98 version of emm386.exe, for instance?
It never occurred to me to use it. (I suppose if you were
running Windows in "DOS mode", but that's an exercise in
massochism, and you should use DOS 6 instead, either by
having a separate partition or by booting off a floppy.)
What bugs me is the fence Windows tries to sit in terms
of DOS compatibility. I could understand if they made
a clean break with Windows. Come to think of it, they
did, and it's called NT. I could also understand if
Windows '95 were fully backward-compatible with DOS.
Instead, it's neither. It's somewhat in-between. Yeah,
*SOME* DOS software works. *PART* of the character set
is the same for console-mode apps. SOME of the DOS
commands are provided, and they MAY even be compatible
with the old versions, sometimes. What is that all about?
IMO, they should have made '95 fully DOS-compatible
(well, except for TSRs maybe, which seem moot in a
multitasking environment), and left the incompatibilities
to NT, which is forging its own path.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:26:42 -0400
Shock Boy wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Shock Boy wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Marion
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Full Name wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> We recently had a Mandrake box rendered unusable when the machine that
> > > > > >> was used as a backup failed to answer the mount request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Why don't you configure it properly...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah... the usual UNIXhead answer whenever someone complains about falling
> > > > > into yet another UNIX misconfiguration trap: "It's not the fault of
> > > > > UNIX, it's the fault of the user for not configuring UNIX properly."
> > > > >
> > > > > And they wonder why the Linux companies have fallen on hard times...
> > > >
> > > > Just exactly what hard times would those be? Linux continues to increase
> > > > marketshare, mostly with servers, but also some desktops.
> > > >
> > > > as for configuration...you should see the nightmares that arise when
> > > > Windoze isnt correctly configured.
> > >
> > > Every linux install I have withnessed had the difficulty in configuration.. but
>i've yet to see
> > > any nightmares over windows.
> > >
> > > Insert CD, click install.. sip some coffee.. then install one's applications.
> >
> > Cant use this, IRQ conflict, cant use that, IRQ conflict. Its a
> > nightmare.
>
> Would you please define what an IRQ conflict is? I've never
> experienced one, on the Mac or PC side of life..
Two or more devices set to the same IRQ.
What's worse, since the very beginning, rather than just encouraging
manufacturers to make cards with sets of 4 jumpers, so you can set the
card to ANY 4-bit combination, Microsoft has continued to presume that
I/o ports can have IRQ's 3, 7, 10 and 14 (who the fuck came up with
that???) and no other.
Ditto for every other damn device.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:30:57 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Hallock) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >You've fallen for Pete's trickery. He didn't say Linux, he said UNIX.
> >Pete wants people to believe that no UNIX can handle power outages, even
> >after I explained to him that JFS on AIX is a fully journaled file
> >system that can easily handle pulling the plug at any time.
>
> And AIX JFS is every UNIX is it? That's one example of a UNIX filing
> system, can the same be said about every other? For instance, ext2fs?
Every major version of Unix now has a journaled filesystem available.
It can't guarantee that you will have everything written to disk up
to the very last second...but it WILL guarantee that filesystem
corruption from crashes are now a thing of the past.
Conversely, the damn LoseDOS98 box *insists* on trashing at least one
filesystem every month or so....
>
> Pete
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:33:54 -0400
Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti) wrote:
>
> > I remember the first time I saw a DOS prompt as being the single
> > most confusing experience I ever had with a computer. I grew up
> > on the TRS80, Aquarius, TI/994A, C64, Apple II, and Amiga. I
> > though almost all computers came with a BASIC interpreter for a
> > shell (not that I knew what a shell was). I was similarly
> > dumbfounded by the Amiga CLI, which I never did learn to use.
>
> COMMAND.COM is no less intuitive than BASIC, just different.
> Confusion is when you try to use something different and
> all your assumptions break. Some of my most confusing
> experiences have involved MacOS. I know DOS forwards,
> backwards, inside-out, upside-down, and sideways. I'm
> comfortable with Windows (except when it decides to be
> contrary in random ways...) I like Unix. I can deal
> with VMS okay (although I NEED the manuals). MacOS is
> fundamentally unlike any of these, and it confuses me.
>
> Emacs *used* to confuse me. Then I learnt a bit of
> elisp and wrote code to make it behave normally (i.e.,
> the way I expect editors to behave -- ESPECIALLY in
> the cursor movement department) and now it's great.
Just what everyone needs, an editor where nothing works the
way you expect it to.
There's a reason why, after a week, I went back to using vi.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:34:30 -0400
Rich C wrote:
>
> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Rich C wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > You said you did destructive stress testing for _what_ company? :o)
> >
> > All decently-built battery backups have these things called
> > ....circuit breakers.
>
> And the purpose of popping the breaker would be..........???
To keep from damaging the solid-state components inside.
>
> --
> Rich C.
> "Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
> intelligent, until you hear them speak."
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:33:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Oh, oh, a tirade from Charlie.
>Well, obviously old Charlie is a threat to you Pete.
Oh you're no threat to me at all.
>And I'm honored again by you....
It's no honour at all, really, Charlie.
>I was on the ground floor when Microsoft boxed the first dos.
Not sure what to make of this. I was working at Digital when I first heard
of DOS.
>This is why you and others always want to refer to specific versions of
>Windows! Oh that was Windows 3.11! Oh that was Windows 95!
>Oh that was Windows 98. Oh that was Windows 98 SE!
No... I want people to realise that Windows 98 is not the same as Windows
2000. Attributing problems to "Windows", like hanging on shutdown, gives
the reader the impression that all versions of Windows do this - whilst in
fact it is really only Windows 98 SE. Not Windows 2000
>And I hold this in position to you idiotic comparison to Linux!
Your trying to twist what I'm saying.
>You never see people on Linux Advocacy or ANYWHERE ELSE for
>that matter refering to the OH THAT WAS REDHAT 4.2.. OH THAT
>WAS SUSE 5.0!!! OH THAT WAS KERNEL 2.0....
Really? You don't read COLA much do you then? I see plenty of people
referring to Mandrake 7.1 or SuSE!
>TRUELY, I don't know of anyone, you included PETE, who doesn't have a
>bitch about a windows platform!
I've bitched about Windows 98 SE, but not Windows 2000. I happen to rather
like Windows 2000. Your being twisty again.
>Windows is at a dis-advantage as it costs you some serious cash to play.
>Linux does not have this dis-advantage.
Hmm... I believe you pay for you get. If you paid nothing for it, then,
well...
>Windows is always attempting to reach for the stars with every release,
>only to fall into the pit of failure taking their customer base with
>them on every new item.
Sounds like propoganda to me.
>Windows OS's are, and probably will always be, written from the ground
>floor up!
>They truely didn't bring anything over from NT nor 98 into 2000.
Really... funny, Windows 2000 makes the claim, "Based on NT Technology".
>In-fact, the closest cousins we see are the 95 and 98 releationsships.
98 is based on 95, so 2000 is based on NT?
>Linux is a progressive build. They prove their code first, then move
>on. Out of the Linux distribution since day 1, less than 5% of the
>overall GNU code
>has been retired.
Well, it could be that Linux is stuck in the past. Judging by the number of
people who claim the command line satisfies their every need, that would be
appear to be true.
>You could NOT say that there is 5% of the code from NT in Windows 2000.
>You could NOT say that there is 5% of the code from 98 in Windows 2000.
So, what percentage is it Charlie? Um, and how would you prove it? Do you
have access to the developers?
>In-fact, customer satisfaction comes in large part by not concealing
>things in the kernel and other .dll's.
Ah... now we're talking about some of Microsoft's less pleasant things. I'm
well aware of the DLL's that shipped with IE that had general purpose code
in, and that was deliberate.
>Much of Microsofts current day failure is their concealment of
>consiparcy code against other vendors. The Security leaks and their
>continual refusal to fix them. {ILOVEYOU} has been well known for
>months now. Where's the patch to fix this?
Microsoft could hardly be said to be a failure.
As for the patch, it would appear to be on their website. I've not tried
it, as I don't use Outlook. I use something called "The Bat" which doesn't
support executing scripts.
>Eventually Pete, even you will evolve to be self aware someday.
>And you will realize that your nothing more than my servant.
Boy o boy, you're delusions of grandeur are getting bigger and bigger! Have
you seen your shrink lately?
Pete
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:36:13 -0400
marc_k wrote:
>
> Brian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : Aaron Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> : >All decently-built battery backups have these things called
> : >....circuit breakers.
>
> : Ya, and they work great.
>
> : However, under heavy transient conditions the expensive and fast-acting
> : transistors often burn out in an attempt to save the inexpensive but
> : slow-acting circuit breakers.
>
> : Best regards,
>
> : Brian
>
> There's another factor in this whole story....
> Most small UPS's make a assumption:that since the unit was designed for a
> certain capacity battery, then the UPS only has to operate until the
> battery runs down.
> Adding a higher capacity battery, WILL give more time BUT, the UPS may
> well fail before the battery does-probably due to overheating.
Mount some heat-sinks, and get a couple of fans.
> The circuit breaker won't have any effect on this, as the unit is not
> being overloaded at any one point in time.
> Of course, a WELL designed UPS might have overheat sensors on the
> VMOS transistor heatsink, which may save the UPS from burnout, but will
> still take the load off-line.
> Either way, adding batteries, unless you KNOW what you are doing, is not a
> good idea.
Better than kissing your database goodbye.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:37:48 -0400
marc_k wrote:
>
> Brian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : Aaron Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> : >All decently-built battery backups have these things called
> : >....circuit breakers.
>
> : Ya, and they work great.
>
> : However, under heavy transient conditions the expensive and fast-acting
> : transistors often burn out in an attempt to save the inexpensive but
> : slow-acting circuit breakers.
>
> : Best regards,
>
> : Brian
>
> There's another factor in this whole story....
> Most small UPS's make a assumption:that since the unit was designed for a
> certain capacity battery, then the UPS only has to operate until the
> battery runs down.
> Adding a higher capacity battery, WILL give more time BUT, the UPS may
> well fail before the battery does-probably due to overheating.
Mount some heat-sinks, and get a couple of fans.
> The circuit breaker won't have any effect on this, as the unit is not
> being overloaded at any one point in time.
> Of course, a WELL designed UPS might have overheat sensors on the
> VMOS transistor heatsink, which may save the UPS from burnout, but will
> still take the load off-line.
> Either way, adding batteries, unless you KNOW what you are doing, is not a
> good idea.
Let's see...
which would I rather have to do?
A: Restore a corrupted database
or
B: Buy a new UPS.
If We have to take a $100 hit to prevent $2,000 productivity loss
from downtime, I'll take the $100 hit any day.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
