Linux-Advocacy Digest #270, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: X can't be that slow ("Robert L.")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Certification? (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Windows, Easy to Use? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (abraxas)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 05:26:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Curt Howland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am reminded of a recent article pointing out that IBM and Dell are
>"cooperating" to sell pre-packaged Linux machines that come with
>support.
Only VERY recently.
>Isn't that exactly what Microsoft was prosecuted for? Negotiating with
>hardware vendors to pre-package their software?
No, O whiner. For making 95% preloads significantly more
expensive than 100% preloads.
And here are some indications of M$'s character -- purely
anecdotal, but interesting:
When Linus Torvalds showed up at a Comdex last year, Bill Gates
got furious and threatened not to show up if Linus was to show up at
another one.
Bill Gates got furious when he discovered that Intel was
investing in Red Hat.
According to "Barbarians Led by Bill Gates", BG decided to do some
Internet market research -- and got furious as he discovered that next to
none of the Internet's content was in Microsoft formats.
Such anecdotes do *not* suggest a fair competitor who expects to
win on product performance.
>Get real. The entire prosecution was contrived from the start. No one
>was ever forced to use a Microsoft product, unlike the forced used to
>support NASA for instance.
And you are not forced to live wherever you are living; you are
perfectly free to build yourself a floating city and declare it a
sovereign nation.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X can't be that slow
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:15:22 GMT
"OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Robert L." wrote:
>
> > I never use X as root.
>
> Good idea.
>
> >
> > My user use qvwm, else, it's too slow. ( Do you know some other wm
faster
> > than that?)
>
> I've never used qvwm, but I understand fvwm is fairly easy on the
resources (no
> idea on how fast).
>
> > I know i have to start X before my window manager start.
>
> I apologize to you. I misread your post, but too late to pull back my
response
> which I cancelled (which is futile since the message always shows up
anyhow).
>
> Next time I try to read your posts more carefully before replying.
I should make it easyer to read ( and trying to get a spell checker, don't
even know if i write it corectly ).
It was really bad ( my post ), i should read my post twice.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 05:35:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have been in Russia three times.
>What they have is NOT capitalism. It is the newest form of
>communis (perestroika means "restructuring"...and that is exactly
>what they did...the RESTRUCTURED COMMUNISM), wherein they pass out
>all of the economic goodies to a few party insiders ...
Calling that Communism is absurd; there is a name for that
already in existence: "crony capitalism", which is common in Third-World
countries.
There is a grim joke about this situation:
"Everything they told us about Communism was false"
"Everything they told us about capitalism was true"
To my mind, saying that they are not real capitalists is like
saying that the xUSSR had not been run by real Communists. The xUSSR had
been far from the ideals of Marx's Communist Utopia -- and its government
was not the sort that could easily wither away.
I think that there is an interesting ideological convergence
between Marxists and capitalist libertarians. Both believe in the eventual
withering away of the state, a utopia where everybody is a virtuous
anarchist, that there are working and exploiting classes, that economic
analyses are supreme, etc.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:42:31 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 20:51:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>coercive and cruel. Social Democracy is much better.
The trouble with Social Democracy is that it doesn't put enough value on
individual freedom. No matter what social and/or political system we adopt,
individual freedom should be its highest priority. That was the original
goal of the Libertarian party, before they aligned themselves with big
business. Someone should start a new Libertarian party to focus on
individual freedom. Or infiltrate the present Libertarian party to take it
away from the big-business faction and restore its original purpose.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:49:12 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:27:24 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I take it you think you are assuming that Microsoft just gives away
>thier software? The software cost is about $100, or at least that's the
>amount of money the OEM will usually nock off of your purchase if you
>tell them you don't need Windows.
Proof please? Prepare a list of OEM's who stock low-end computers and
offer both Windows and non-Windows, but otherwise equivalent, systems, and
charges $100 more for the equivalently equipped computer with Windows. A
URL will suffice as evidence.
However, the price tag of Windows is almost completely transferable to
Linux. As you know, the OEM, and not Microsoft, supports Windows. This is
extremely costly. As a price point, Red Hat charges $80 for their
offerring with three month's support, so the cost of putting Linux with
three month's support is $80, which is barely less than the alleged $100
figure for Windows. The $20 difference may be a big deal if computers
reach sub-$100 prices, but at the current prices of sub-$400 and up, it is
irrelevant.
I don't have evidence of how much Microsoft charges for WIndows licenses,
and neither do you, but the figure I hear thrown around is $5-$10. Nobody
knows excepts the OEM's and Microsofts as this is highly confidential
information, but someone who is resourceful enough can probably come up
with a reasonable ASP estimate, based on the number of PC's sold last
year, coupled with the publically available information on Microsoft's
business.
As a back of the envelope calculation, there were half a billion PC's
shipped in the past five years, which @ $100, would be $50 billion for
Microsoft. Their total revenue during that period was a little bit more
than that, but Windows is far from their only business.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Jun 2000 00:59:50 +0500
>>>>> "nobody" == <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:40:34 -0400, Aaron Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Steven Smolinski wrote:
>>> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >Matthias Warkus wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Ray Chason
>>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >>wrote:
>>> >> > "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Vim is what we got when vi finally caught up with Emacs.
>>> > At 1/10th the diskspace footprint.
>>> [...and another skirmish in the editor wars begins...]
I don't want to start a Vi-Emacs Holy War here but aren't you
forgetting that Emacs is much more than an editor. For example I am
writing this right now on Gnus under XEmacs. You should see Emacs more
like a variant of Lisp which happens to have an editor build on top of
it.
>>> Hey, I use and like them both. Can't we all just get along?
So do I, I use VIM for quicky jobs at the console.
Charles
------------------------------
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Jun 2000 01:35:53 +0500
>>>>> "simon777" == simon777 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You need a better newsreader Charlie. You are quoting what you
> are saying before you say it...
> Typical Lincrap....
Oh really? See below:
,----
| Early mail and netnews readers had no facility for including
| messages this way, so people had to paste in copy manually. BSD
| Mail(1) was the first message agent to support inclusion, and early
| Usenetters emulated its style. But the TAB character tended to push
| included text too far to the right (especially in multiply nested
| inclusions), leading to ugly wraparounds. After a brief period of
| confusion (during which an inclusion leader consisting of three or
| four spaces became established in EMACS and a few mailers), the use of
| leading > or > became standard, perhaps owing to its use in ed(1) to
| display tabs (alternatively, it may derive from the > that some early
| Unix mailers used to quote lines starting with "From" in text, so they
| wouldn't look like the beginnings of new message headers). Inclusions
| within inclusions keep their > leaders, so the `nesting level' of a
| quotation is visually apparent.
|
| The practice of including text from the parent article when posting a
| followup helped solve what had been a major nuisance on Usenet: the
| fact that articles do not arrive at different sites in the same
| order. Careless posters used to post articles that would begin with,
| or even consist entirely of, "No, that's wrong" or "I agree" or the
| like. It was hard to see who was responding to what. Consequently,
| around 1984, new news-posting software evolved a facility to
| automatically include the text of a previous article, marked with "> "
| or whatever the poster chose. The poster was expected to delete all
| but the relevant lines. The result has been that, now, careless
| posters post articles containing the entire text of a preceding
| article, followed only by "No, that's wrong" or "I agree".
|
| ...
|
| Most netters view an inclusion as a promise that comment on it
| will immediately follow. The preferred, conversational style looks
| like this,
|
| > relevant excerpt 1
| response to excerpt
| > relevant excerpt 2
| response to excerpt
| > relevant excerpt 3
| response to excerpt
|
| or for short messages like this:
|
| > entire message
| response to message
|
| Thanks to poor design of some PC-based mail agents, one will
| occasionally see the entire quoted message after the response, like
| this
|
| response to message
| > entire message
|
| but this practice is strongly deprecated.
|
|...
|
`----
---From *The Jargon File*
Too bad, Forte Agent is a great News Reader, but it looks like it is
you who are not doing it justice.
Charles
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Certification?
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Jun 2000 01:50:30 +0500
>>>>> "Sean" == Sean LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone here who has gotten a cert (LPI, RHCE, etc)? I see there
> is a book coming out in Sep about LPI, and there is one
> published last December covering quite a few of them, how is
> that one? Any tips/pointers on passing?
I haven't gone for my LPI exams yet but I do have the General Linux
book for LPI exam 101 published by Coriolis [ISBN #: 1-57610-567-9]. I
find it quite comprehension and well written.
Charles
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:56:32 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 14:05:17 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Non-blocking i/o is defined not to wait, so what you are describing
>is the correct behaviour. If that isn't what the programmer intended
>he should use normal blocking i/o (if only one descriptor is being
>watched), or select() or poll() for many or to return after
>a specified interval so the program can have a small timeslice in
>a loop even with no i/o, or fork off a process that can do
>blocking i/o for this resource, perhaps multiplexing it through
>a FIFO for the master process.
You completely missed my point. Of course non-blocking I/O is defined
not to wait. Duh. My point is that on more advanced systems, you don't
_do_ non-blocking I/O. Non-blocking I/O is a Unix'ism and isn't done on
other systems. That's my point. You have to resort to non-blocking I/O on
Unix for many terribly simple applications, even things such as having
keyboard interruptible applications. This is because Unix's I/O model is
absolutely assinine.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:01:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Its extremely relavent. Understanding the scheduler and and how
> it affects your process running at different priorities in (for
> example) multithread and SMP environments is something that
> should always be understood to some degree by the coder.
I agree that it is important, particularly for MP, but I would also argue
that knowing assembly language is at least ten times as important to
knowing how to effectively program. Ironically, I have met MANY Unix
programmers who do not know assembly language for the machine they work
on. In fact, I'd say that a majority of Unix programmers I know are
completely dumbfounded by the sight of assembly language on their native
machine. The excuse is usually some cruft about how assembly language
isn't portable, which has nothing to do with the ability to read it ...
(and the scheduler is not portable either of course).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:11:03 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:16:23 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The classic Unix scheduler interrupts the current process when it has
>> exceeded its time quantum, puts it at the end of the running queue, and
>> switches to the task at the head of the queue. The implementation in
>> Version 7 is five lines of code. Newer systems have multiple levels for
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>And you can't see the advantage of a small, tight, queing system?
"small, tight" is meaningless. You can implement bubble-sort in a couple
lines of code, but quicksort (particularly a proper quicksort, which ends
with mergesort for arrays of less than ten in length) is going to be a lot
longer. Bubblesort runs in O(n^2), and quicksort in O(n log n).
For almost any problem out there, the smallest and simplest algorithm is
not the fastest. The larger and more complex, the faster, in many cases.
Just compare indexed files to bags of bytes.
The case of a scheduler is a particularly interesting case, as the running
time of the scheduler itself is almost entirely irrelevant, but the
optimiality of its results is what to measure.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:23:47 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:43:32 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Daniel Tryba wrote:
>> Advandage of TS:
>>
>> -It's faster on slower networks.
>
>I'm not sure I agree with the assessment. I can't argue with your
>perception, obviously, but I think the data exchange requirements are
>higher with TS than with X.
For the main application I run at work (an X Windows program), it is
actually considerably faster to run it from home through a terminal server
session running Exceed, than it is to run it directly on Exceed on my
home computer. That is, even X Windows programs are faster over Terminal
Server than over X. This is over 28k modem.
Terminal server is very zippy, actually. I live in the ghetto, so I don't
have cable modem or DSL, and the phone lines are too noisy to work above
28k, but IE for example works on TS almost perfect over a 28k modem. I've
tried Netscape on X over faster connections but it was unusable. X is
not usable for general use except over a LAN.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: 23 Jun 2000 06:49:24 GMT
>* that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user
>interface
The *ix model can be GUI-ified. Have a look at:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~tal197/vvsh.php3
A GUI way to handle data streams/filters.
> * that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing
>inconveniance to users for years.
Nope. I can run Kapps under Gnome and Gnoapps under KDE. I just have to
choose the panel/filemanager I prefer. It doesn't inconvinence me, except that
there are two seperate library sets to keep at hand. The competition may
encourage superior overall products.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows, Easy to Use?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:22:43 GMT
In article <MOx45.1612$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, another loveley afternoon dealing
> with a Windows Protection Fault.
This is almost as much fun as dealing with my "Corrupted Registry".
> Does Windows give any indication as to why? No.
Keep in mind, Microsoft's primary claim of advantage is that Windows
is Easy to LEARN, not that it is easy to USE.
Even this is debatable. Windows provides some great tools like
Wizards, help menus, help balloons, and other "ease of use"
features. These were intended to make Windows easier to use.
Ironically, these "Easy to use" features created a huge market for
tutorials, videotapes, and courses taught at places like CompUSA
and various business and trade schools.
I can't help but wonder, if Linux had the same kinds of tutorials,
courses, videotape courses, and other training aids, would people
consider Linux easier to use than Windows? I'ts very likely that
they would. In this case, it's only a matter of time.
Microsoft keeps erecting barriers in the form of illegal exclusionary
contracts which prevent OEMs from installing both operating systems
on the same machines, but it's likely that most of these contracts
will be nullified by the courts. Besides, Microsoft is rapidly losing
negotiating leverage. The OEMs know the game, know that they can
blow the whistle, and know that they now have some options. It may
not be too much longer before Microsoft will be ASKING to be included
on Linux/UNIX systems.
> Does Windows let you see what the OS is loading as it loads? No.
Typically it wouldn't do much good anyway, since practically
everything that you might log would only be useful if you had
access to code and/or specifications that made any difference.
Unfortunately, since this code and specifications is only
available to people who sign comprehensive nondisclosures.
> If you do a logged boot does the log file
> ever get written? No. (Not w/ a
> protection error)
> I've posted about this before and someone
> said its usually bad hardware. BS.
Usually, it's a race condition in an OCX file. Since these are
likely to be hardware related, typically under the VDI, Winsock,
or one of the other device drivers, it would appear to be hardware
related.
Keep in mind that a Protection Fault usually results when a race
condition results in two processes or threads treating a common
buffer differently. For example, if two applications request a buffer
for an object, but one wants a 200 byte buffer and 5 method pointers,
and another requests a 2000 byte buffer and 5 method pointers. In
a race condition, the 200 byte object would be allocated and set
to a pointer, then the 2000 byte object would be allocated and assigned
to the same pointer. The 200 byte object would be initialized, not
realizing that the pointer had been changed, then the 2000 byte object
would be initialized, not realizing that the pointer was already being
used. When the 200 byte routine then attempts to execute the method,
it's method pointers would be set to the values of the 2000 byte
buffer. It would try to execute the bogus address which causes a
fault in the MMU which is handled by the software.
Typically these race conditions can only occurr in windows that
are only 1-2 microseconds. This means that the probability of
this race condition being triggered is a function of the frequency
of the occurrance. For example, a video driver race condition with
a 1 microsecond condition that get's executed during each video frame
could be triggered every 18000 occurrances - about once every 1000
seconds.
> In every case I've seen its been corrupted
> *something*. Corrupted what?
Remember, even the top MCSEs must follow the 5 Rs.
Restart the Application.
Reboot the System.
Replace the Application.
Reload the System.
Reformat and Replace everything.
> Who knows, windows never gives any indication.
> Damn, if it did we'd probably know more than MS
> wants us to know about how its OS works.
Actually, very often we find, upon careful examination of the
loaded libraries, that there are library conflicts. For example,
Windows NT 4.0 service pack 2 was known to deliberately cause
system failures when the Cyrix chip was used (a retaliation against
IBM for including SmartSuite instead of MS-Office). Windows NT 4.0
Service Pack 4 has a problem with Winsock that breaks things.
Often, 3rd party applications provide their own backward compatible
libraries such as MSVC40.dll to prevent Microsoft induced
incompatibilities that can cause application failures.
> Fortunately I did finally figure out it was a corrupt NIC driver. But
windows was
> absolutely no help.
> FSCK MS! :)
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:29:12 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:59:38 GMT, Christopher Browne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That puts it in good company, when:
>- Windows 9x is a pathetic clone of Motif that's ugly and slow;
>- Windows NT is a pathetic clone of Motif that's ugly and slow.
Huh? Motif was supposed to be look-and-feel clone of Windows 3. Windows 95
was also derived from Windows 3 but that makes it a cousin, not a clone. I
certainly cannot think of any feature UI feature, which WIndows 3.0 did
not have, which Motif 1.1 did have, and which Windows 95 did have, as you
imply.
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:38:21 +0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
>
> I don't care what they did. Mandrake 7 would not install on my system
> unless I used the expert install mode. This data makes it clear... you
> must be an expert to install Linux.
Clarify which Mandrake 7 . Even with automatic selection in Mandrake
7.1, I still didn't have problems. My only problem was that my test drive
was a bit small, 3 gigs, and 7.1 is so massive that even with it's
calculation
which packages to install, I missed some of them. Manual installation of
the
required rpm's I need was not that very hard either.
Ferdinand
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: 23 Jun 2000 07:02:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I see 3505/1403/3525 in a sentence in any group other than computer
> antiques and let's tell war stories, and I ignore it.
>
Actually, we're interested in running quite a few linux machines under
VM on *very* beefy hardware. Right now, the G6 processor has nearly no
civilian competition. A dozen of them have *no* civilian competition.
Ive looked at numbers from a handful of organizations that have
gone with s/390 systems running linux through VM, and they consistently
save at least a few million dollars on hardware costs alone.
Price out 5,000 VALinux 1u rackmounts, and then price out the s/390
equivalent. The difference in cost is absolutely staggering.
Then price out the appropriate Compaq hardware + win2000 advanced
server to cover the same application---in this case, lets say
one million concurrent streaming media socket connections.
Its apples and oranges. You simply cannot do some things with
windows on PC hardware--like access an enormous wad of DB2 at
2gigs/sec via multiple appropriate 500mb/sec backplanes.
Just as you cannot run Unreal Tournament on an S/390.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: 23 Jun 2000 07:04:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Linux and punched cards are a match made in heaven.
>
> Oh yea, one other thing. What's with all the S/390 crap? Do you think
> anyone in this group even knows what you are talking about? Or is that
> the only feature of Linux you can find that Windows doesn't have?
>
Its actually becoming a very popular platform for high end (very high
end, it doesnt get much higher in non .gov/.edu applications) server
applications.
Even solaris doesnt seem to scale like it.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
