Linux-Advocacy Digest #359, Volume #28 Sat, 12 Aug 00 01:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux as an investment (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (rj friedman)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as an investment
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 03:29:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"R. Spinks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm thinking that Linux will be a good
> financial investment in the long
> term. Microsoft has proved very
> profitable for many, why not Linux?
In the long term you are correct. There will be a period of
volitility, and Linux growth is rather cyclical. There's a
great deal of Linux activity in late summer through the end
of the year, and Microsoft turns on it's "hype machine" around
March or April to promote what it intends to release anytime before
August (since Microsoft's fiscal year ends in August, a delay beyond
this impacts the annual report).
> Does anyone have suggestions as who
> is likely to be profitable as an
> investment in Linux?
Even if I had an opinion, making reccomendations, even in a group
like this is treading thin ice with the Securities and Exchange
commission.
> I've heard Red Hat is public,
> but I don't know much
> more than that. Suggestions?
Here are some that I watch/play/dabble in.
Red Hat (RHAT) - sells Linux, Service, and Support contracts.
Caldera (CALD) - sells Linux, Service, and Support contracts
Applix (APLX) - Sells Linux Office suite - also financial analysis
software to mutual fund managers.
Inprise (INPR) - Former Borland and Visigenics - very pro-linux.
ESoft (ESFT) - Service based model.
Cobalt (COBT) - Linux Appliance server - configurable via web browser.
VA Linux (LNUX) - Linux service provided - level 2-4 support to other
companies. Also provides/supports Slackware.
SCO (SCOC) - SCO is adding Linux to it's reperatoire of Franchise
and Branch Office Support. Caldera is taking part of
their business.
IBM (IBM) - very aggressively and publicly embracing Linux. Also
providing smoother path from Linux to AIX.
Hewlet Packard (HWP) - embracing Linux, but more cautiously. Again,
hoping to leverage Linux presence into HP/9000 sales.
Pearl (PERL) - an accident - they make telecomm cards that give
Linux powered PCs many of the capabilities of a CISCO router at
a fraction of the price.
Most of these stocks went nuts back in september of last year, peaked
around February, and have pretty much fizzled near their lows.
A riskier play is to play the volitility of Microsoft dependent
stocks such as MSFT or CMGI, and play the swings. It's real
easy to get caught in a down-draft, but if you're into day trading,
the swings can be as much as 20%/day. I'm just not that fond of
roller coaster rides.
Each of these companies has some stake in Linux and could gain
some benefit if Linux really takes off in the corporate market.
Mostly the profits will be in consulting and services.
This probably isn't an exhaustive list, and as always, there
are no ways to accurately predict when, or even if, any of these
stocks will suddenly bubble up like they did last year.
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 03:41:19 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when tom would say:
>One of the reasons you folks seem to prefer Linux is its "stability",
>as opposed to Windows apparent lack thereof, whatever this may mean
>specifically.
What it means is that:
a) If a program happens to crash, the OS underneath will basically
just "throw it in the trash;" the memory that _was_ consumed
is returned to the system for use by other processes, and is
returned _quite successfully._ In contrast, even with Windows
NT, the "more reliable" member of the Windows family, once
memory has been consumed by a process, the OS kernel appears
somewhat reluctant to return it for use by other processes.
b) If a program happens to crash, it _only_ had access to memory
specifically assigned to it. This _DRAMATICALLY_ diminishes
the ability of programs to adversely affect one another.
c) Since programs _aren't_ stepping on one another, there are
vastly fewer adverse interactions.
d) There is no centralized "registry" that programs are continually
writing things to, thereby providing Still Another Fragile
Shared Resource.
e) GUIed applications do not share a single "GDI subsystem," which
cuts down again on sets of Fragile Infrastructure.
Entertaining analogy:
In effect, each program is given its own "homestead," complete with its
own virtual memory space. As a result, if the program pulls out a gun
and starts shooting at things at random, while it may succeed at killing
_itself_, it is not likely to shoot anyone else by accident.
In contrast, running Windows is rather more like sticking everyone in
a big apartment building, and giving them Uzis. There is the convenience
factor that they can [arguably] more easily rendezvous to communicate
[of course, with Unix/Linux, everyone has an Internet connection, so
communications are still pretty easy ;-)], but if they pull the trigger
on the Uzi, bullets are likely to fly all the way through several
apartments.
>I've seen a number of websites where people claim that various
>alternative shells (e.g. LiteStep & GeoShell) are more stable than
>Windows' Explorer. No doubt there's more to the issue of stability
>than the shell which, as I understand it, is simply a way to issue
>commands and run programs. How much can Windows be improved along
>these lines -- anyone have any experiences?
I've tried LiteStep and found it a little _less_ stable for me atop W95
than Windows Explorer; I'm sure milage can vary.
[The folks at work are going to be deploying W2K on a bunch of desktops;
it'll be interesting to see if the alternative shells help/hinder its
stability...]
The _real_ problem is not in the shell; while if you can get a more
stable "veneer" on top, that may help _a bit_, that only improves
overall stability a bit, not a lot. You're still left with the
problem that if a device driver is a little flakey, and you use
an ODBC driver that has a memory leak, and you run Mozilla M17
that has a few bugs, and continue the sequence, you're left with
the overall degree of stability being based on the _product_
of the levels of stability rather than on the _lowest stability_,
as might be the case with a system like Linux that doesn't so
tightly integrate the components.
Suppose I make up some numbers here...
e.g. - Suppose the device drivers are 99% stable, and ODBC is 97%
stable, and Mozilla is 95% stable.
With them all being connected, the resulting "stability"
might be:
0.99 * 0.97 * 0.95
or
about 0.9123.
That is, if device drivers break, the system gets hurt. If ODBC breaks,
the system gets hurt. Mozilla crashes? System hurt.
In contrast, on Unix, many of these subsystems would be independent.
Which means that:
a) The overall system is affected by the device driver, and
is about 99% stable. Arguably 10x better than the
91.23% gotten up above.
b) Database applications that use ODBC are 0.97 * 0.99
or about 96% stable.
Anything that doesn't use a database is unaffected by this.
c) Mozilla is likely to be 0.99 * 0.95, or about 94% stable.
Consider it stipulated that these "stability factors" are pretty vague.
"95% stable" is by no means a _precise_ metric.
The point of this is that when the components are a tad more independent,
the overall system improves in reliability.
The differences are a bit more dramatic than the above makes obvious;
on Windows, once Mozilla has crashed once, the overall system is
somewhat injured by this, and may be injured more each time it crashes.
In contrast, if the "flakey" Mozilla keeps crashing on Linux, that should
have virtually _no_ persistent ill effect. If it keeps crashing, that
may signal some other persistent problem, but very probably _doesn't_
signal that you should "reboot to clean things up."
>And on a slightly different topic, if I go to Best Buy this weekend to
>pick up a version of Linux to try, any suggestions as to which one for
>a Linux newbie? I'll never give up my Free Agent, but I'm kind of
>nostalgic for the Stone Age when I had my first internet account, a
>Unix shell on Primenet running tin, pine, and pico; thought I might try
>to get something like that going on my computer. (Actually my first
>internet experience involved AO-hell, but let's not get into that. :)
If you've been through _that_ stone age, then none of the options
you see on the shelf should scare you too much. CompUSA has Caldera
OpenLinux on for $9.95 right now, and it is certainly a credible
system.
Corel Linux seems to get billed as the "most heavily Barney-fied"
of the bunch;
Caldera seems to be pretty easy to get installed, and (I grabbed a
copy for reference) the documentation seems surprisingly good;
SuSE comes with a _BOATLOAD_ of software, what with 6 CDs;
Mandrake seems to get a lot of high marks around the local Linux
Users Group;
Red Hat has released 6.2, which gets them out of the "flakey x.0 and
x.1 versions" that they tend to suffer from;
Virtually any should be _reasonably_ credible, and _all_ are a lot less
scary to try out now than _any_ of them were a year ago.
You haven't really given any information that would help make
a selection unambiguous; _all_ of them _ought_ to be _reasonable_
selections for what purposes you've indicated (which is to say,
you've not been terribly specific about your purposes).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
"Are [Linux users] lemmings collectively jumping off of the cliff of
reliable, well-engineered commercial software?" -- Matt Welsh
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 03:42:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Books already existed in the modern format for at least a milliena before
> Aldus. But they were not cheap because they were hand copied and it could
> take years to make one copy.
Then maybe you would care to explain why Gutenberg didn't print any books?
(Big huge *COSTLY* illuminated bibles that can't even be carried easily do
*not* qualify as books!) Or why pagination took so long to be invented?
What exactly do you mean by "modern format"? Because I mean hardcover
books, and not leather-bound Encyclopedia-sized Tomes (geez, what do
you think Gutenberg's bibles were?)
Or am I completely off base and Alan Kay lied in his speech at Educom 98?
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 00:05:54 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, JS/PL wrote:
> >"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> >> So far W2K hasn't proven itself. That's not MS bashing - it's really
pro
> >MS to
> >> be honest about W2K! If you really knew about W2K you'd argue about
it's
> >> benefits and tone down the nonsense.
> >
> >I'm relating my experiences, Window 2000 Advanced Server is extremely
> >reliable, as a matter of fact I've not had a single OS related problem.
>
> You haven't any credibility.
You have no concept of credibility.
> >What's nonsense about that, I have yet to see any proof to the contrary
by
> >anyone. What is nonsense is the constant reliability bashing with without
a
> >shred of supporting documentation.
>
> You don't understand the word PROVEN.
> A PROVEN technology is one that has proven itself. W2K is NOT proven
reliable
> by default -- unless one is irrational.
You don't work for Websters do you? Your definition of "proven" aside, I
don't even really think W2K is even best described a "technology". Maybe an
Operating System in general or a modern computer as a whole could be termed
"a technology" but it's pretty hard pressed to be calling a specific OS a
"technology", it's much closer to "a product". So re-write your argument
again and I'll take a look at it.
> [..]
>
> >> I'm sure Hotmail will be running a version of W2K now that MS is
finishing
> >> Window2000 Data Center and will NEED to test W2K DC on HotMail. That's
> >good
> >> since the OS needs to be tested before customers will deploy the OS.
MS
> >> isn't going to use the toy verion of W2K you said is stable but I
suppose
> >these
> >> differences don't register with you.
> >
> >Depending on your definition of tested.
>
> Tested as in Windows2000 Data Center is just released to manufacturing --
> it is untested in real settings.
What is "untested in real settings"? More importantly, tell me what the
method of testing has been used to date? Theoretical testing? Pen and paper
testing? You mean to tell they have written one version, figured out that
according to the math, it ought to work, compiled it and sent it to the CD
machines.
I submit to you that it has been tested and refined at nauseum in "real
world settings".
> >The software has had years of
> >testing under thousands of environments, the final product was compiled
in
> >December 1999.
>
> Windows2000 Data Center was NOT finished Dec 1999. You're mixing up a
desktop
> client with a server OS.
Windows2000 "Pro, Server,and Advanced Server is what I'm talking about. Do
you disagree that those 3 versions contain mostly December 1999 file
creation dates
>
> >If your definition of tested is testing in the marketplace,
> >no it's barely been tested, but it has performed as promised. Can you
show
> >otherwise?
>
> Did you ever prove the OS has performed as promised? Please understand
where
> the burden of proof lies. No customer is going to depend on W2K because
it has
> NOT been proven unreliable. You have it all ass-backwards.
I do understand the burden of proof, (in America) it rests with the
Plaintiff not the Defendant. The person accusing has the bruden of proving
the accusations.
>By building W2K Data Center MS openly admits W2K isn't As
> stable and reliable as you have said.
That's pretty assinine. It's like saying "By building a Cadillac, GM is
openly admitting the Saturn isn't stable and reliable" Come on....
Now MS wisely recognizes (you don;t)
> they need to prove W@K DC is reliable and they wisely know it will take
time
> and effort - hence Hotmail their test case.
I'd define it more accurately as a "showcase" not a test case. Testing is
finished.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 12 Aug 2000 04:46:47 GMT
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:32:36 "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
�> There is an abusive monopoly unnaturally distorting the PC OS market.
�In your opinion.
Sorry, Charlie. That's the opinion of the United States of
America. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend all
of the evidence never happened - but the United States of
America says that you are full of shit.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 00:50:43 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >
> > I've never eaten anyone, I've never killed anyone over religion, and
> > I've never tortured anyone for his or her beliefs. So how am I ethically
> > equivalent?
>
> Ok. I see I failed to communicate. Let's define what actions are
> ethical.
> Actions are ethical when they agree with the actor's ethics. When they
> agree with the actor's scale of values.
>
Wrong.
>
> If you define what actions are ethical in a different way, then we are
> talking about different things, and of course we will disagree.
>
But what you mean by ethics would make it trivial.
>
> However, if you are, would you be so kind as to explain what definition
> you are using?
>
> And, to follow your example: you say you have never eaten anyone, and
> say you are morally superior to a cannibal for it. Why is it immoral to
> eat a dead person?
You said that I was ethically equivalent to a cannibal, I said that I
had never eaten anyone. Whether cannibalism is correct or not,
how do you get the equivalence?
> And since you ask what rational basis the judges of
> Galileo had, what are yours?
>
> >
> > Funny how the other ancient civilizations with slavery never
> > had such philosophic achievements.
>
> Necessary != Sufficient.
> Many other civilizations without inquisition didn't get there,
> either.
>
> Fine wheather also had a great influence in the brilliance of
> greek philosophy.
>
How was the weather better in Greece?
>
> > > For a medieval, or renaissance, devote christian, the choice between
> > > greek philosophy and the will of god was obvious, and there was
> > > only one moral and ethical choice. Which we, of course, don't share,
> > > but we are not them.
> > >
> >
> > Nope, if they must blind themselves and others in order to maintain
> > their faith, then they are evil.
>
> Who is "they"?
>
The inquisitors.
> > > (any?) meaningful way, and that, yes, they were wrong, but
> > > error is (IMHO) not a basis for censure.
> > >
> >
> > Threatening someone with torture over an astronomical
> > issue is more than an error.
>
> Torture was a standard legal investigation step almost
> everywhere in Europe at the time. Threatening with
> torture was done every time someone was accused of
> anything, more or less.
>
As the alleged source of medieval/early Renaissance morality,
the Church should have done a better job of restricting torture,
not encouraging it.
>
> > > Being "right" in the way you are now would have been
> > >
> > > a) Unthinkable.
> >
> > No. The Venetians, for example, would never have tortured
> > anyone over such a dispute. Galileo had lived in Venice,
> > but didn't like his teaching duties there.
>
> Blah. Venetians tortured just as much as anyone else at the
> time, AFAIK. Galileo may have had a better protector there,
> however.
>
But would they have tortured over that issue? And if not, then
it wasn't unthinkable..
>
> > > b) Immoral.
> >
> > Only by a flawed morality.
>
> Flawed compared to what? Our morality?
>
Obviously, but also flawed to what the clergy could have
achieved if they had viewed ideas as means of cognition
rather than means of social control.
>
> > > c) Unethical.
> >
> > How is this different from immoral? Or are you being redundant?
>
> Immoral and unethical are two different things, AFAIK.
>
> You can be ethical and amoral, and you can be moral and lack an
> ethic. Morality is based on an idea of what's good, ethics on
> an idea of what's better.
>
>
> It can be ethical to kill in self defense, and be immoral
> if you believe in the sanctity of human life.
>
> > > d) Inconvenient (because they would go to hell!)
> >
> > Then the Church deserves censure for brainwashing.
>
> Sure. Are you sure they were not right? Based on what?
>
Based on astronomical data, such as observations of the
moons of Jupiter. The clergy who visited Galileo refused
to sully their minds with such "profane" awareness of
mere reality.
>
> > > Why censor them, then?
> > >
> > > The difference between martirdom and justice is often one
> > > of perspective.
> >
> > One may as well say that about Auschwitz.
>
> Low blow. Do you want to start arguing the ethics of the
> holocaust? It's a very complex subject.
>
What's the complexity? Millions of people were killed for very
little reason.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not saying that the Church is more guilty than Islam, I'm only
> > saying that in terms of human life, the Crusades were more
> > destructive than the persecution of Galileo.
>
> Ok. I agree with that. And much less destructive than WWI. What point
> are you trying to make?
>
You said that the Church prosecuted Galileo to defend the faith, and I
pointed out that one of the reasons for the Crusades was to defend
holy places, and that the latter was far more destructive than the former.
>
> > > > > That was a sin against GOD, who they believed would condemn them to
> > > > > hell. They believed NOT burning the heretics was immoral!
> > > >
> > > > And what basis did they have for such beliefs?
> > >
> > > Beliefs often lack adequate rational basis. They wouldn't
> > > be beliefs otherwise.
> >
> > Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis for their
> > beliefs and give them weapons and political power.
>
> Well, we do that all the time. Take the second ammendment, for
> instance. The US gives weapons (and political power) to just
> about everyone, regardless of their beliefs.
>
Perhaps I should have said a monopoly on bearing arms.
So the would-be victims get to fire back. This is a problem?
>
> For instance: militias who believe the UN is out to get them,
> and a variant of islam who believe the white race was created
> by an evil mad scientist.
>
> Are you against the second ammendment? (I am ;-)
>
No.
>
> > > > > Galileo's trial, no matter how awful it seems from our porspective,
> > > > > was really a honest mistake
> > > >
> > > > > A terrible one? Sure. But was the church
> > > > > acting unethically? Probably not. Illegally? Surely not.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course not illegally, as secular governments generally
> > > > went along with the church.
> > >
> > > Ok. Now, was it unethical? Keep in mind that most theories of ethics
> > > require you consider only the coherence of the actions against
> > > the value system of the person commiting the action.
> >
> > Yes. One is responsible for one's value system, and if one's
> > value system demands such censorship, then such a
> > system is wrong.
>
> Well, that's where we part.
Then people may do whatever they want, as long as they
value the results of such action?
>
>
> > Hitler's "value system" demanded the extermination of the Jews,
> > and his actions were coherent with it. Should he be held blameless?
>
> At one point, a value system where the jews were human was replaced
> by a value system where they were not. If you want to find the moral
> blame, find who changed it and why.
>
The Nazis, to some extent, although they exploited rather than created
anti-Semitism. But the Nazis were the ones not only advocating mass
extermination, but performing it.
>
> > > A murder can be ethical. That's why cops have guns.
> >
> > No. In that case it isn't murder, but only killing.
>
> What's the definition of murder? Sorry, I am reaching a limit
> in my english.
>
In legal terms, murder is deliberate, premeditated, illegal killing.
Government execution of criminals and acts of self-defense
are not murder.
>
> > > > > Who knows what of what we do today will make us monsters in the eyes
> > > > > of the 25th century?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll take that chance.
> > >
> > > Ok, how about this: we may be destroying the world for the future
> > > generations.
> > > In a way, that's a genocide much larger than anything in the crusades or
> > > whatever, since it may destroy ALL humanity, and no human moral system
> > > that I know of considers that evn remotely ethical.
> >
> > We may be, and if we are, we deserve such censure.
> >
> > Unlikely to destroy all of humanity, but yes much more than the
> > Church did.
>
> Then who are we to censure them, when they were comparatively
> less evil?
>
But we haven't destroyed the world yet. Our deserving of censure
is conditional on that.
>
> And, what part of this evil we are creating has been caused by
> our blind faith in science? Maybe stopping science WAS better.
> No, I don't believe that, but I am not SURE!
>
> > > > "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
> > >
> > > Blah. Preparing to be judged does nothing about the possibility
> > > of judgement, or the outcome of the judgement.
> >
> > Except that one does not perform acts likely to lead to censure
> > in the first place.
>
> Maybe.
>
> > > It's useless
> > > except to keep you comfortable. It's almost navel gazing.
> > >
> >
> > And not making moral judgment is any less navel gazing?
>
> I make moral judgements all the time, they lead everything I do.
> I even act against the people whose morality doesn't agree with
> mine. I try to convince them that mine is superior, and
> react to their actions when they go against my moral and ethics.
>
> However, I don't hate them for it.
>
And when Galileo tried to convince people that his astronomical
theories were better?
>
> If I had lived at the time, and I had my current set of beliefs,
> I hope I could have convinced someone that their beliefs were
> inferior, thus improving (in my view) their moral status.
>
But given the Church's alleged moral authority, should it not
have done a better job promoting toleration?
>
> > > And who are you to judge people you don't know, on facts you know
> > > only through the haze of history 400 years later, who acted based
> > > on a morality you don't share.
> >
> > I am a human being. Who are you to apologize for the Church?
>
> Who said I'm apologizing? They apologized themselves.
>
> > > That's, let's say, a tad messianic.
> >
> > As opposed to being militantly ignorant?
>
> I have not been called ignorant very often. What am I supposed to
> ignore?
You're not supposed to ignore centuries of censorship and torture.
>
>
> Anyway, ignorance is no shame. The things I ignore are legion.
>
But some of them are important, as well.
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
