Linux-Advocacy Digest #201, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: maximum (?) linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Nik Simpson")
Re: The State of MCSE's ("Stuart Fox")
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux as embedded OS (Tim Magnussen)
Re: The State of MCSE's ("Stuart Fox")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 3 Aug 2000 12:40:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3 Aug 2000 03:56:30 GMT,
Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>> application crach != console crash.
>>>
>>>WinNT crash != console crash. :-)
>>
>> Yes it does. When NT crashes, your console crashes with it. When an
>> just an app dies, your console doesn't crash.
>
>Your definition of "console" does not match what the chief engineer aboard
>the ship,
The chief engineer is obviously keeping something from us about what
really happened. I am an embedded systems developer. Currently working
in avionics, several years back I worked on a power plant consisting
of several large engines. In my experience it is utterly rediculous
for the control of engines to be critically dependent on a being able
to access a remote database.
>the developer of the system,
>and the news agency that broke the
>story refer to as "LAN Consoles".
You tell me what they refer to as "LAN Consoles". And don't tell me an
application is a console.
>Please provide a credibile reference to
>WinNT crashing and contributing to the incident.
>
Please provide a credibile reference to WinNT not crashing, and what
it clearly meant by "crashing LAN Consoles". Otherwise, I will go by
initial press reports and not the cover up that occured later.
>> All this says is that a database bug initiated the problem. It doesn't
>> say that the NT machines weren't crashed by that bug.
>
>The news agency that broke the story says early speculation about
>WinNT was wrong.
Provide a URL to a news agency that admits it's initial report was
wrong. Sounds to me like it's more of a cover up than anything else.
>
>>>> An engine control loop needs a database?? Please.
>>>
>>>Who said "engine control loop"?
>>
>> Any modern engine today has a control loop. You have one in your car.
>
>Again, other than you, who said "control loop"? No one has said the
>clients that crashed were part of a "control loop", merely that they were
>used to operate equipment and that these applications used the database.
>
Well excuse my use of industry terminology. What I want to know is why
the failure of a database rendered access to the engine controls
completely unavailable, i.e. not even an abilty to send manual
commands to the engine controllers from the consoles.
>> Failure to calibrate a single valve does not take out a properly
>> designed engine room. Nice try.
>
>No one said it did, but if valves are controlled by application programs
>that crash an engine may stop running for a couple of hours.
Why do these application programs need access to a database to
work?? Why isn't there any manual overide available to the operaters at
the console??
>With respect
>to "properly designed" did you somehow miss the fact that this was a test
>platform trying out new equipment. That they were running debug versions
>of the software that permit unsafe operations and has fewer safeguards.
And that's the one time NT crashes the most: when developing, testing,
and debugging custom software.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 3 Aug 2000 12:40:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:50:34 -0400,
Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>What in Windows is "inseparably glued together"? Certainly not IE and
>>>the OS.
>>
>>Well that's not what they said in the DOJ trail is it?
>>
>
>They claimed that IE is now a part of Windows, which it clearly is.
>But IE and the Windows OS are no more "inseparably glued together"
>than the Bourne shell is "inseparably glued" to Unix. In both cases,
>the component in question is "just another app", but simply remove it
>and you'll end up with a system that doesn't boot.
This is simply not true. Embedded systems typically run without any UI
shell at all. A typically configured Linux kernel, on boot up, will
look for and execute a /linuxrc if mounting a ramdisk or a /sbin/init
for any other root fs disk. A shell is not executed untill called either
directly or indirectly by one of these and is not absolutely
necessary.
>>
>>And how do I run win98 without running explorer.exe??
>>
>
>Change the "SHELL=" line in SYSTEM.INI.
Ok fine. Now tell me how I can have two different types of default
login shells shells running at the same time for two different users
to be logged in at the same on Win2k (via terminal server).
>>
>>And since when has Windows always been a product consisting of both OS and
>>applications. They don't market it as such,
>>
>
>Who cares how they market it?
They market it deceptively.
>Windows has (at least since 3.x)
>included both an OS kernel and a bunch of user-mode applications.
Ok since 3.x. In your previous post you said always.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 08:46:50 -0400
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bj1i5.2183$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:2mUh5.1$Tj2.146@client...
> >
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:0AEh5.1878$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8m411b$i2a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <uveh5.11098$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest,
most
> > > > > heaviest tasks.
> > > >
> > > > The PC bus architecture has the I/O throughput for that sort of
stuff?
> > > > The usual tactic is to get a proper mainframe or Sun Enterprise or
> > > > what-have-you[*], and I've never heard of a port of NT to that size
of
> > > > iron...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, actually, it does. This is proven all the time. Benchmarks head
to
> > head
> > > against the biggest iron Sun can muster is defeated by Compaq and Dell
> > boxes
> > > using Wintel.
> > >
> > Hold on a moment there Drestin, the best single box numbers for the x86
> > architecture are in the 50K range for TPC/C from the ProFusion 8-ways,
> > that's handily beaten by single box numbers for hi-end UNIX boxes. It
will
> > be interesting to see what can be got from the Unisys 32-way which has
the
> > memory and I/O bandwidth to compete with the hi-end UNIX boxes. But
right
> > now, the single box x86 systems are not in the same league, and the
> > multi-box TPC/C numbers are not directly comparable.
>
> I was not aware at all that we were talking about single box versus single
> box. I didn't see that mentioned. I will be interested to see how 32 way
> boxes from Compaq, unisys and others perform again these *nix boxes...
>
I agree, both sides have been trying to phrase this argument in terms that
best suit their respective TPC/C numbers. Today, if you want really high
numbers on a non-partitioned database then UNIX/RISC is the way to go, on
the other hand if you have a database that is readily partitioned then
NT/x86 is the way to go. There are two key facts that are being ignored by
some on both sides:
1. Partitioned and non-partitioned DB are very different things
2. The sort of numbers being thrown about are of little relevance to the
vast majority of database implementations. The 8-way 50K number is so far
beyond what most companies need out of a database server today that it has
little relevance, so imagine how little relevance (other than for marketing
purposes) numbers in 100K and greater range have. In the real world, the
vast majority of needs can be met comfortably with an x86 platform running
your OS of choice and these numbers up in the nosebleed section of the TPC/C
benchmark results are of little value for anything except bragging rights.
My point was that a previous poster had said quite correctly that the
current x86 platform doesn't compete with it's hi-end RISC counterparts in
measurements involving bandwidth etc. This is quite correct and is the
reason why single box numbers for NT/x86 (or Linux/x86 for that matter)
cannot currently compete with something like a E10K. You seemed to be
disagreeing with that assertion and I was correcting you. Apparently though
you are still under the impression that comparing partitioned TPC/C runs
with non-partitioned runs is reasonable thing to do, which it isn't.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 08:46:38 -0400
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
<snip happens>
> > > > > > > *HE* won the gold. *HE* reached the pinnacle of achievement which
> > > > > > > none of his opponents have even come within reach of.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My point exactly. While you both have a right to be somewhat arrogant
> > > > > > (after all, you have each achieved quite a bit in your own way) and you
> > > > > > are nearly as annoying as he is,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry Aaron, I meant to say 'and you aren't nearly as annoying as he is.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No offense taken. I know I'm annoying on USENET....by design.
> > > > (Ask Drestin Adress)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, at least you post pro-Linux posts in the Linux newsgroup. Drestin
> > > on the other hand...
> > >
> > > Annoyance factor: Drestin > Aaron
> > >
> >
> > Unless your name is Drestin Adress
>
> True enough. But, that's the beauty of perspective.
>
> To Windows advocates, even the most reasonable *nix advocate is a
> trollish idiot.
Which is why I adopted the policy of being completely "unreasonable"
in my intolerance for stupidity. I use the full force my Purdue
education to soundly beat the stuffing out of any MS-Losevocate
who tries to trout out the standard MS marketing bilge.
Those who carry water for a tyrant deserve to be tortured and
humiliated.
> Although I do believe posting *nix in a Windows group
> is just as negative as posting Windows into a *nix group. But being
> polite isn't a requirement for participating on Usenet (unfortunately).
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 08:47:40 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [businesses and governments both having dictators...]
>
> >The difference is this:
>
> >You can always change jobs. You can always find a new store to
> >do business with. But with bureaucrats, you're stuck.
>
> Ignoring:
>
> * Businesses also have bureaucracies. And sometimes very obnoxious
> bureaucracies.
Big deal. They can't do a thing when you say the two magic words:
"I quit!"
> * One can always move to another country.
Ever try it?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: maximum (?) linux
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 07:47:52 -0500
David Punsalan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This post is not about Linux - but about a Linux magazine. I apologize in
> advance if this is not the right newsgroup to post to. I would, however,
> like to get other people's opinions.
>
> I recently made a mistake of buying an issue of "Maximum Linux" magazine.
> I thought it was absolutely horrible.
>
> I was in an airport and had to kill time, so I bought it. I was so upset
> that I wasted my money on it. Does anyone else agree that this magazine
> is terrible? Did I just get a bad issue (aug/sept 2000)?
>
> It comes in a plastic bag so that you can't check it out prior to
> purchasing it - now I know why. Inside - they break the news to you that
> the free Mandrake 7.1 CD that it comes with is not quite the full version.
> The crippled distribution might be okay still - but this "surprise" just
> adds salt to the wound.
>
> In just ~10 minutes of looking at it, I saw 2 glaring typos. As I tried,
> to make the best of it - I realized, in horror, that very little useful
> information could be found (e.g. One of the columnists, a self
> professed "newbie" gives "tips" which are entirely superficial with no
> details. )
>
> Hopefully, this post will save some people who are curious about it. I
> bought an issue of "Linux Magazine" and I liked it a lot b/c in a single
> issue - I found scores of useful information with detailed listings.
> "Maximum Linux" magazine, I think, may be good for people want to know
> more about Linux merchandise. But I found it woefully lacking in useful,
> informative articles.
>
> - David
I too feel that Maximum Linux is a gigantic joke, and in fact recently
started a thread about exactly this same problem. I feel that the
magazine isn't about Linux so much as it is about Windows. There is far
more about Windows, or how to make Linux be more like Windows in each
issue than there ever is about Linux. And it is so abundantly obvious
that the people 'in charge' of the magazine are not long time Linux
users, but newbies. It's even sadder that they constantly announce
(with pride even) that they have been Linux converts for a full 2 months
(or however long they have been members of the magazine staff). Then
they go on to show their total lack of knowledge about Linux by trying
to tell everyone how pathetic Windows is. If I wanted Windows bashing
I'd come to COLA :-). Seriously though, they need to start having some
real Linux information, or they are going to flop. The only semi-useful
info in the few issues I've seen is the series on Perl, but if you
already know Perl you will see a few errors even with that.
I see the potential for greatness within the magazine, but unless they
hire someone that has actually used Linux, and has participated in the
community at some point, in some way, they are doomed. And I had such
high hopes as I always loved boot and Maximum PC. But trying to convert
a bunch of Windows people into a bunch of Linux people overnight, and
then expecting them to write about their newfound toy, is just too much.
I got suckered when I first heard about the magazine and actually
purchased a subscription. I have written them twice already with
complaints (and I tried to be polite about it), and both times recieved
the same response. My main complaint is that they focus too much on
Windows. Their response? The world revolves around Windows and I will
just have to deal with that. I have no problem with that, but I do have
a problem with a 'Linux' magazine spending so much time telling me
that. Anyway, you've hit on one of my pet problems.
Maximum Linux sucks. Until they grow beyond the 'we're 3l33t cause we
know *nix, and Windows sucks ass' stage, they are not going to impress
anyone.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 08:51:41 -0400
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mahio$2g98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > I was not aware at all that we were talking about single box versus
single
> > box. I didn't see that mentioned. I will be interested to see how 32 way
> > boxes
>
> (for those who have actual computer experience, "32 way" means 32
processors)
>
> > from Compaq, unisys and others perform again these *nix boxes...
>
> I guarantee, hands down, no contest, that a sun enterprise 10000 running
> solaris would absolutely kick their ass.
We'll come back to this assertion when the results are in, I suspect you may
regret it!
>
> Compaq doesnt even know what hot-swappable logic boards and gigabit
backplanes
> are yet.
>
Compaq may not, but Unisys do, and Unisys designed the box. I was privy to
early design specs for this machine in 1997. It's x-bar architecture much
like the E10K with 2GB/s of bandwidth for each CPU/Memory interface and is
designed to have enough bandwidth in x-bar to take Itanium and future 64-bit
CPUs. Features like hot-swap components are also designed into it as is a
partitionable configuration (i.e. run it as 1x32way, 2x16way, 1x16+2x8 etc.)
This truly is a mainframe architecture much like the E10K, the only
significant difference being that it uses Intel processors and runs NT (and
IIRC Solaris x86)
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The State of MCSE's
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:58:29 +0100
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> MCSE is nothing more than a Borg indoctrination program. It does not
> make people qualified, it only makes them M$ sales people.
As long as demonstrating a cursory knowledge of a MS product makes you an MS
salesperson.
I've recommended plenty of times that people don't use a MS solution, simply
because it doesn't make sense for them to do so.
>
> None of the MCSE's I have seen can even create an IP netmask.
The ones who've done the TCP/IP exam should be able to :)
>
> People pay thousands of dollars to get an MCSE, and it is worthless. If
> I see a resume with MCSE on it, I look very carefully at it. Almost all
> the candidates I have seen with an MCSE were idiots. The ones that
> weren't just got the MCSE so they could say they had it for customers.
>
OTOH the MCSE's I have worked with have all been highly skilled
professionals. Although I suspect that hasn't got anything to do with them
being MCSE, just the hiring policy of the companies I have worked for. Sure
you meet the odd idiot, but I'm pretty sure in a few years time there'll be
plenty of people passing themselves off as Linux consultants who will also
be incompetent. Where people see an opportunity to "enhance" their CV and
perhaps make a few dollars while they're at it, they'll do it. It's up to
managers/recruiters to be shrewd enough to spot the idiot.
Stu
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 07:56:13 -0500
gLiTcH wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Cause the whore is a pro, and probably knows how to do things that your
> > > > friend providing free sex doesn't. Of course, these are the things that
> > > > cause heart-attacks and strokes (hmmm, I drew the analogy to Windows
> > > > even better than I thought I could). And let's not forget the great
> > > > array of diseases provided by the whore.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess morals isn't a question anymore huh? If so then neither the friend nor
> > > the whore would be an option. But then again in this day and age everyone likes
> > > to make their own morals so in their mind they are perfect.
> > >
> > > good joke though about the windows analogy
> >
> > Thanks, it was meant as a joke. And, just in case you haven't picked it
> > up from my other posts, I am a happily married man and would never step
> > outside of that relationship for sex. Morals are very important to me,
> > but when I'm kidding around....
> >
>
> point taken , good for you, and we could all use a little kidding around after a day
> with MS (microsoft that is)
>
Believe me when I say, "You ain't just whistling dixie sister!"
Or something like that.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Tim Magnussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:04:07 +0200
Hi and thanks for your answer.
> You are missing "LGPL" which is a looser version of GPL intended for
> libraries.
>
> If your system is self contained, you can make propritary code. If you
> have to modify existing GPL code, then you must make your changes
> public, but you can keep everything else private.
But how do one define a self contained system?
Say we base our system on an x86 device using:
*) Linux compiled for this specific hardware
*) Xfree86 & GTK+ (which is GPL and not LGPL as I understand it?) - unmodified
*) Apache - unmodified
*) PostgreSQL (more free than GPL)
*) Our own proprietary software
The proprietary software that we write will link to these packages but will
not require modifications hereof.
What we would deliver then is a hardware device containing all these parts but
none can be said to be self contained. For example without GTK we wouldn't be
able to display the userinterface (and that _would_ cripple the product :-) ).
> Corel, WordPerfect, Applix, etc. are making closed source projects. The
> Linux kernel even has provisions for closed source software. At the top
But as they deliver a software package which I think it is a different matter.
The following is an excerpt from the GNU site on "Why you shouldn't use the
Library GPL for your next library" that I read quite unambiguously:
``Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software
developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for
a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary
developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot
use it.��
We do have the advantage of money and I'm sure that the amount we would save
from not having to pay MS royalties would be a small fortune, but that really
isn't the issue.
We could contribute to Linux financially or with code, but parts of our code
is absolutely vital to the organization and cannot be released. This leaves us
stranded...
/Tim Magnussen
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The State of MCSE's
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:05:31 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8mb3eu$5lk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> OK, I know these MCSE people study very hard and all, but this just
> sucks!
>
> I walked into a business with some new PC's they ordered. The people
> want new Servers. They were renting server from a company (M$
> orientated). The company replaced all their old machines due to Y2K
> concerns. I asked what happened to the old machines. It turned out they
> were all in a store room. Three boxes in total. There was two 386 box
> with Novell and a 486 box with Win95. I booted up the PC's and you
> wouldn't believe it, but the 486 was happily displaying 1 August 2000!
>
> So, the customer was renting machines at a very high cost whith no
> need. I just installed Linux on the 486 and he phoned the company to
> come and fetch their machines.
>
> You should have seen the look on their faces.
>
> I could of course not resist to ask the one person as they left why
> they marked even the Monitors as "Not Y2K"?
>
> He just walked...
>
FWIW, I was on site at a company that was binning plenty of machines because
of y2K concerns, not after testing, but just on the manufacturers status
report (non - Y2K compliant). This wasn't a decision taken by any technical
staff, but instead by management.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
