Linux-Advocacy Digest #209, Volume #26 Fri, 21 Apr 00 15:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that (Karl Knechtel)
Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that (Karl Knechtel)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: which OS is best? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: VA Linux: Worlds most overpriced PC ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:31:08 GMT
You've heard some good points in favor of Linux and some questionable
points in favor
of Microsoft products.
Allow me to now point out a few KEY things Jason which will be affecting
your career
as a Network Administrator.
First, I'm a lifer in the insurance business. I've written insurance
packages
and maintained them for decades. From mainframes, through networks such
as NOVEL,
through Microsoft and Unix also.
I'm certified to work in all 50 states and I work for the nations
largest
insurance processor.
We have a large investment in Microsoft products. We are extremely
unhappy with
this investment as Microsoft operating systems are un-reliable. When
testing
new software, even to this day, you could blue screen servers and
disrupt thousands
of insurance professionals for 2-3 hours as you attempt to bring the
network back
up.
The performance of Microsoft products degrades with each new release,
thus forcing
us to upgrade hardware we had not planned to upgrade, thus adding
additional cost
to operations. And finally to add insult to injury, when you finally
upgrade
your operating system to the next version, you find that many of the
applications which
previously ran on the previous system no longer function correctly ---
and this forces
you to upgrade them also.
And finally the notion that by going to the Microsoft platforms we would
reduce the need
for training our people as this would be a push button environment has
since evaporated.
We now REQUIRE people to have been trained on Microsoft products before
they can be
hired. The cost of training and re-training hasn't been reduced using
Microsoft products.
Yet this was one of their biggest selling points in the beginning.
The reason the re-training and certification issues surfaced was
originally Microsoft
products were simple. And today, the demands for more services has led
them to follow
the path of UNIX itself. And when adding this complexity to meet the
demand,
they have created a unique situation whereby unique/proprietary training
is necessary.
We went to Microsoft in the beginning because they offered a cheap
alternative
to mainframe service. And over the years, mainframes have actually
become cheaper.
The entire effort to move to Microsoft was incorrect in thinking as we
now know.
Linux is another subject. Linux is a clone of UNIX to a degree.
Linux offers the command set and functionality of a UNIX operating
system with
a comparable performance level. What's different about Linux is it's
versatility
as well as it's enhanced support for hardware.
Today's Linux has nearly the hardware support that Windows 98 or NT has.
The price of a distribution is a modest figure usually under $100.
We have run competitive tests on experimental platforms using Linux in a
work
environment and find that it's capable of replacing NT servers.
Development work is beginning to replace all Microsoft Products with
Linux products
as we speak. The project is scheduled to take 3 years to complete and
certify.
It is TRUE you can take one copy of Linux GNU licensed software and
install it
across 12,000 former NT workstations. IT is also TRUE you can take that
same
CD and replace 380 NT servers. And not break any copyright laws in the
process.
Linux upgrades can literally be done over FTP, NFS, CD-ROM. There are a
variety
of measures for installing and upgrading the product.
It has been proven that upgrading linux products does not force
application software
upgrades. This test was started with Red HAT 5.2 and continued to Red
HAT 6.2 then
to Mandrake 7.0 and finally Suse 6.4.
Linux supports MAJOR commercial software such as Oracle 8i.
Linux will be supporting Borland products next year.
Linux will have a GNU based COBOL compiler as of next year which is
based on the
Micro focus Net Express model in functionality.
I am to understand that Microfocus/Merant has expressed an interest in
Linux and will make
an announcement in the coming months with their own product.
Upgrades using Linux also degrade performance of the operating system,
but to a MUCH
smaller degree than Microsoft upgrades.
Linux does not BLUE SCREEN.
Linux has natural virus protection.
Linux has better security than Microsoft - point well taken considering
current events.
Linux has unlimited SEATS for their servers.
Linux supports more communications protocols than Microsoft products.
Linux is more versatile and configurable than Microsoft products.
Training and re-training issues. Here is the area where Linux ties with
Microsoft.
Linux is Unix and is very sophisticated in nature. Training is serious
for new recruits
not familiar with UNIX. Re-training is less serious as the upgrades for
Linux products
occur every 6 months typically as opposed to Microsoft products being
upgraded every 3 years. So re-training on Linux comes in little bites
which are more easily digestible
for the average employee. When it comes to NEW employee's who have had
no previous
PC experience with NT or Linux, we find the learning curve to be
compatible.
Anyone who's used NT or Windows 98 has raved about the GNOME and KDE
desktops power.
They share many control features with Microsoft products which helps get
new users of
Linux get their start on the desktop. Clearly, if there were not
advanced desktops
such as the KDE and GNOME no effort would have been made to move from
Microsoft to
Linux in the first place. These desktops give you the power to change
settings
and features for the entire range of the Linux Kernel without having to
re-boot.
Network administrators will appreciate their ability to remotely
configure and even
upgrade servers via several communications means.
It's for these issues and the COST issue that Linux will be replacing
Microsoft
in not only our firm but thousands of firms across the country.
In a short span of time, say 6 or 7 years, Linux will become the
dominate
operating system of the planet. Having one operating system which can
service
your entire company is much better than having multiple ones from a cost
stand point. It's cheaper in the long run on training personnel. It's
cheaper
to maintain software for one operating system. It's cheaper to develop
software
for a one operating system world. The case is well taken.
When your company is based on the Microsoft platforms, you have to
develop
and test your applications for a variety of Microsoft OS's. You have
Windows 95
on some machines, Windows 98 on others, Windows NT and even Windows 2000
to contend
with. This makes the QA process much more expensive than it would be
for Linux.
As Linux is far cheaper to obtain, keeping entire companies fleets of
PC's at
the same platform level is actually feasible and affordable.
Linux performance is about 1.5 times that of NT currently on the same
hardware.
Linux is not the FASTEST operating system available, but it is rather
the
most practical and most widely supported of the UNIX's.
Knowing that Linux is doubling in user base every year, it's not
difficult to
envision Linux as being the dominate operating system of the world.
Look at the reasons I've listed. Remember that you don't even have to
buy a distribution
to install Linux on your machines as it can be installed via an easily
made boot
diskette set up for FTP download. Remember that it's hardware support
currently rivals
Microsoft's supported database. Remember that the KDE and GNOME desktop
are immediately
familiar to current windows users. And that Linux is progressing
forward with
new versions of entire distributions on average every 6 months.
Let's talk legal terms for a moment. Copyright infringement is an
important
issue with Microsoft. That's why they invented the system registry.
Linux has not such thing, nor will it ever.
Linux is NOT a corporation. Therefore it's not open to Federal
anti-monopoly actions.
The direction of Linux is controlled by it's users and not governments
nor private
corporations. Linux can not go bankrupt. Linux can not be put under a
private
copyright from a rogue company. I don't have to do software license
audits under
Linux as GNU licensed software is free to all the worlds citizens. I
can never be
sued for violating a copyright by using linux or modifying Linux code as
long as I
continue to use the GNU public license on all my work. No more need for
a corporate
legal staff administering software issues.
In 1999, 50% of the worlds servers sold were sold with Linux as the
server OS.
In 1999, desktops with Linux sold had doubled again for the 3rd straight
year.
In 2000, it is well expected by all that desktop sales of Linux will
double again.
The number of Linux distributors doubles every 2 years.
The number of Linux distributions has been growing steadily also.
The concept of the distribution is a UNIQUE concept with powerful
marketing appeal.
Linux is cross compatible in that a program written on a Red Hat system
will run
equally well on a Suse or Caldera, or Debian, or Mandrake, or Slackware
system.
It will run well across the entire board of Linux distributions!
The difference between distributions is actually in how they install,
their install
tools, their administration tools, and how they upgrade. It has nothing
to do
with the base kernel so to speak! The distributions are what makes
Linux attractive to
users.
Microsoft has one product now which is Windows 2000. They are
attempting the same
model and also cutting their cost of maintaining separate operating
systems.
They sold us in the past on the idea that having Windows 95 and Windows
98 and NT
in the same company co-existing was OKAY. That having different OS's
from the
same company is a reasonable and cost effective idea. Then they changed
and
came out with a mono platform, Windows 2000. Windows 2000 has three
levels of service
but is more homogenous than previous platform attempts.
Trouble with Microsoft is their Windows 2000 is $350 to buy the desktop
version and
their server is doubled from that of NT in price. Then we are already
finding out
that NT applications don't run correctly on 2000. So there's the old
upgrade of applications once again! And finally, Windows 2000 is slower
than NT. Microsoft
claims Windows 2000 is more stable than NT but I doubt we will conclude
our testing
on that issue. So I won't say it isn't.
The problem with Microsoft is it took Linux to force them to Windows
2000.
It was Linux which created the need for Microsoft to become more
competitive
and lean out their product. Thus Microsoft is 10 years behind Linux in
the homogenous OS department.
There can be little question in any thinking persons mind what the
future will bring
to the corporate and home desktops.
A thinking man can see that Linux is indeed going to be the worlds
dominate operating
system in under 10 years time.
And most likely, and most inevitably, because of this fact,,, Microsoft
will probably
be out of the operating system business within that time frame.
And to continue to develop products which only run on Microsoft
operating systems
it's a poor business decision. For a home user, it would be a poor
decision to
buy more proprietary Microsoft products and upgrade to Windows 2000.
Since it takes a vast amount of time to move an entire company's needs
from one
OS to another, delaying a conversion from Microsoft to Linux could be a
serious issue.
It took us 2 straight years to solve the Y2K crisis. And 3 years to
re-work all
the software the firm uses from one version of COBOL to another more
modern COBOL.
And it will take 3-4 years for us to move to Linux as well. But the
bright side
is we will not be forced to move or re-design again for a very long
time.
We are at the tail end of an era folks and I'm privileged to be alive in
these days!
We have just spent 40 years determining who would win the race for the
most widely
used operating system. I've seen 20+ years of competition in this
business.
Corporations launching campaigns, becoming successful, and their
eventual demises.
This won't be happening with Linux because Linux is NOT A CORPORATION OR
COMPANY.
That's why it will be around longer than other OS systems have been.
Linux is not
prone to "business CANCER." There, I've coined a new term for everyone
to use!
"BUSINESS CANCER"
That's the term to describe what's happening to Microsoft right now.
That's why Linux will win in the end. It's immune to business cancer.
So to answer your question Jason, in order to preserve your employment
status in the future, I would do the following.
#1. I wouldn't knock Linux if it were brought up in a meeting.
#2. I would get a distribution of Linux and start learning it. I use
Suse 6.4 BTW.
#3. I would attempt to demonstrate it in some commmercial capacity to
someone
in a decision making capacity to show them it's functionality.
#4. I would resist approving expenditures in the Microsoft arena.
#5. I would educate and recruit others within your organization to the
ways
of Linux.
As I said, a thinking man can see the outcome.
What's really bad is to be stuck to an operating system which has dead
ended like
OS/2. Then be faced with hardware upgrade problems as nobody makes an
OS/2 driver
anymore. Or how about the panic which occurs when business needs to be
upgraded
application wise and we find out our OS can't be used for this
application.
These are the failures of OS/2 and will be the failures of Microsoft in
the
near future.
Ask yourself this question. What are the advantages of using Windows
2000 in my
company today? The cost? The fact that any application I buy can't be
used
on anything else but a Microsoft OS? Just think of that application
cost.
It cost me $15,000 to equip a Microsoft based PC these days for a new
programmer!
With Linux I could do the same thing I did for this new programmer for
only $45.
And what's really sick is we've found out Linux is more stable also.
Every programmer I work with has to re-boot his/her NT box every 2 days
max.
All servers ARE RE-BOOTED EVERY DAY! It became company policy.
LINUX doesn't require re-booting. There are test machines which have
been up for 8 months
now without re-booting.
Being a network administrator, I'm sure you enjoy having to re-learn the
latest Microsoft
OS every time it happens. The LINUX learning curve, once your on board,
is not nearly
as bad. In fact, I think it's a breeze. It's a breeze as the upgrades
happen every
6 months.
So Jason,
Others have given you great technical reasons for Linux.
Some have hollered Windows also!
I've given you my company's future and their prespective.
A Multi billion dollar company.
What do you think about that, being a thinking man?
Charlie
Jason Portell wrote:
>
> I'm a corporate Network administrator and we are currently exploring
> different networking solutions in my company. I don't know very much
> about the OS, and I would like to know what is SOOOOO great about Linux.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason Portell
> NWE Communications
> St. Louis, MO
>
> --
> We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore
> is not a single thing, but a habit.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:32:02 GMT
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:03:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:02:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>> There's NO reason to consult a single manpage for the installation
>
>Yes, there is if you want to do some pretty common things, which is
>what I'm talking about. NFS sharing, SMB sharing, both as client and
>server, require extensive MAN page reading.
Actually, either of those require very miniscule manpage reading.
You've actually managed to cite one of the better examples of
subsystems in Linux that have good manpages and/or configuration
files well enough documented to make them uncessary.
Either sort of thing would simply confound a novice confronted
with doing the same sort of thing under Windows. Whether or not
Windows is any better in this regard is quite disputable.
>
>> of Redhat 6.2 (or even Piglet). Infact, if you don't care about the
>> data on a machine, the install is a one button process.
>
>It's a bit more complicated than that. Sure, on many OSs the
>button-press to kick off the install is a one button process, but to
>get to that point takes a bit of time, and to configure it also takes
No it doesn't. Redhat will do everything for you, make all the
decisions, narrow the options. This is essentially what a Windows
installer does to make things 'easy'. They remove from you some
very powerful options and boldly erase disks dedicated to other
OSes.
>quite a bit of time.
>
>It's much, much better than it once was!
>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> It also helps if you bother to actually USE the gui present to
>> fully explore the interface. I had to tell a senior programmer
>> about the 'boot-to-kde' menu option in gdm. It never occured to
>> him to poke around the interface of the gnome login screen.
>
>That's then a problem with the interface if people can't figure it
>out. There's so much -to- Linux that sometimes that can be a big
>problem, even for otherwise intelligent people.
That's true of GUI's in general. It's not merely limited to Linux.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: rec.games.roguelike.nethack
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
Subject: Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:02:55 GMT
Bart Oldeman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Karl Knechtel wrote:
: > <rant crossposted to comp.os.linux.advocacy, where it should hopefully be
: > somewhat more relevant. Those of you in rec.games.roguelike.nethack are
: > warned ;)>
: >
: Paths are there in Windows as well.
: (e.g. type set in a command line box:
: PATH=C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND;C:\WINDOWS;C:\DOS;C:\BAT;C:\UTIL)
: You just don't start Word with
: C:\>\MSOffice\Winword\winword.exe
: do you? In *nix all binaries (or representations) are in a few
: directories: you don't need a long path. To implement such a thing in
: Windows you need a directory full of batch files or a very long path.
Did I give the impression I was a Windows user? Sorry...
I'm on MacOS actually; now I'm starting to wonder just how MacOS does it
when (say) the dialog pops up asking you to choose an app to open something
with (as it doesn't seem to take appreciable time to find the apps that will
do the job)...
: To stay on-topic: I just tried to install nethack on my Debian
: GNU/Linux system:
: apt-get install nethack
: That's all, and an entry (together with Xnethack) shows up in the Debian
: Application Menus, under Games -> Adventures. Nothing special.
: > keys - which I avoid by using pico - and the idea of forcing something to
: pico is fine for small editing jobs, but it lacks a lot of things (like
: search & replace and syntax highlighting, although the former seems to
: exist now if you start with "pico -b"); it's useless for serious editing
: of programs and large texts.
True; fortunately I'm rarely in a position where I have to do "serious
editing" remotely [I'm using *n?xen on basically every remote system I
connect to, and MacOS at home. Presumably this is not a terribly common
arrangement? ;)]
: Emacs (probably needs some customization) or Nedit or mcedit or ...
: should be fine for you as well.
In a 24x80 character window?
: > run in the background with. I thought this class of OSes was supposed to
: > do PMT; how come if I run netscape without an & from an xterm, the commands
: > in the xterm window don't get executed until I quit Netscape, even if I
: > minimize it and bring the xterm window into focus? Shouldn't a command
: Just make the xterm active, type Ctrl-Z (stops netscape) and then bg
: <enter> (puts it in the background) if you want to use that xterm for
: commands again. It's not a big deal.
Thanks for the tip. That's not at all obvious though...
: The reason why it goes this way, is that your shell (e.g. bash) doesn't
: know whether netscape is going print some stuff in the xterm. And if you
: don't like this, why don't you just make an alias?
...Why would one app ever print to another's window? And so what if it does?
Why should it get in the way? Doesn't each process get its own stdout stream?
: alias netscape = 'netscape &'
: or make an icon on your desktop, or start it from the menu?
Because a) I don't know how b) there IS no menu. The only *n?x I'm using
where I can get at any graphical experience (i.e. run Netscape) gives me,
upon login, a screen with a grey background and an xterm window in the
middle, and that's it.
: I really don't see your point very much. You choose to use the shell. This
: gives you a lot of flexibility, but a few minor 'inconveniences', which
: are quite logical if you think about it.
I don't "choose" to use the shell, it's the sort of *n?x experience which is
offered to me. I have no problems using GUIs or CLIs in general, but my
experience has been that they invariably get in each other's way when I am
offered both simultaneously. Perhaps that is my failing.
Karl Knechtel {:-#>
da728 at torfree dot net
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: rec.games.roguelike.nethack
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
Subject: Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:08:37 GMT
Raisse the Thaumaturge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In rec.games.roguelike.nethack Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > If you don't have multiple users, there's not much (any?) overhead. But
: > one should not do everything as root (I've got to stop!), as it is
: > preferable to download email to an expendable account.
: Also, it's sometimes nice to have one account for personal things,
: one for business things, one for mailing lists, etcetera, so (a)
: everything doesn't fall into one mailbox so important mail doesn't
: get snowed under, and (b) one can use a different name for a
: different purpose. I don't answer business mail as "Raisse the
: Thaumaturge"!
<snip>
Oddly enough I'd rather login to (a) remote system(s) to check my email -
force of habit I guess. At any rate I keep several emails in different
domains, and give different addresses to people according to what sort of
email I'm expecting.
I have "Karl Knechtel" as my name in all my .pinerc's (doesn't seem worth
hiding that info) and type out my sigs manually as appropriate for the
situation (what can I say, I'm a fast typist).
Whatever works, I guess...
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:32:51 GMT
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:11:26 GMT, Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>These are really abysmal sales figures if you consider the market
>>presence of the predecessor operating system. For two whole months,
>>you're looking at single digit growth, i.e. at this rate it will be more
>>than ten years before the existing NT base finishes upgrading to W2K.
>
>>Looks like there's a lot of cautious consumers out there. Gotta ask,
>>how come they're being so cautious this time around?
>
> What do you mean this time around?
>
> They were cautius with Win95, and WinNT as well.
No, they were standing in line at Midnight to get their grubby
little paws onto Win95.
[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 21 Apr 2000 13:31:46 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:02:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>> There's NO reason to consult a single manpage for the installation
>
>Yes, there is if you want to do some pretty common things, which is
>what I'm talking about. NFS sharing, SMB sharing, both as client and
>server, require extensive MAN page reading.
Does that mean you are able to do things like configuring a windows
domain controller without reading anything? Hard to believe
since the domain concept doesn't relate to the way anyone
else has used the word.
I've installed both win2k and Mandrake Linux on several machines
recently and win2k (server) takes longer and asks many more
questions about things that do not relate to standard concepts.
I saw a ton of books about win2k at Comdex - odd for something
that you claim doesn't require any reading. There was a
5 or 6 book set on active directory alone, and I'll bet it
still doesn't tell how to update it through standard LDAP
tools.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:48:33 -0700
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:02:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> There's NO reason to consult a single manpage for the installation
> >
> >Yes, there is if you want to do some pretty common things, which is
> >what I'm talking about. NFS sharing, SMB sharing, both as client and
> >server, require extensive MAN page reading.
>
> Does that mean you are able to do things like configuring a windows
> domain controller without reading anything? Hard to believe
> since the domain concept doesn't relate to the way anyone
> else has used the word.
>
So your equating a domain model with basic file sharing? For what its worth you can
set up a primary domain controller with a few clicks of the mouse during the
install process. Making sure it plays nice with other PDS systems on your network
is another story.
>
> I've installed both win2k and Mandrake Linux on several machines
> recently and win2k (server) takes longer and asks many more
> questions about things that do not relate to standard concepts.
>
> I saw a ton of books about win2k at Comdex - odd for something
> that you claim doesn't require any reading. There was a
> 5 or 6 book set on active directory alone, and I'll bet it
> still doesn't tell how to update it through standard LDAP
> tools.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see lots of books on Macs and how to use Netscape, strange seeing as they are
both simple concepts.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VA Linux: Worlds most overpriced PC
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:41:50 GMT
In article <8danmq$2sur$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> JOGIBA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This company is dead meat not only because it is the biggest loser
($320
> > down to $28) on the stock market but it is trying to sell a plain
old 733Mhz
> > PC for $2699 !You can go to Dell,Gateway,IBM,Compaq,HP
>
> And get exactly what you pay for;
>
> With VA-linux I get space for 2gigs or ram on that machine, heavier
duty power
> supply and cooling fans, a rackmount kit, hotswap bays, etc.
>
> The comparable compaq carries a similar price.
>
> -----yttrx
If it is the rackmount unit you needed, you should try
1U & 2U rackmount servers from www.rackmount.com.
I bought three 1U rackmount servers from rackmount.com and
loaded them with RedHat 6.2. Man, it worked better than my
previously purchased VA Linux boxes at much lower cost.
Best of all, I don't have to wait 3+ weeks for the VA linux boxs.
Bryan Taylor
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
