Linux-Advocacy Digest #607, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 11:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Andres Soolo)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Giuliano Colla)
Re: I just can't help it! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: I just can't help it! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin ("David Brown")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I just can't help it! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Poor Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I just can't help it! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (sfcybear)
Re: Poor Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Poor Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Giuliano Colla)
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (sfcybear)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux (sfcybear)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: 20 Jan 2001 15:10:00 GMT
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Yeah, the guy claims he designs web pages and doesn't seem to know HTML.
: Sounds more like a kiddie than a geek by trade.
The Winblows world is filled with people who think they're Web site
designers because they can click a few buttons in FrontPage, or
programmers because they can paint controls onto a form in VB.
And then people who really are Web designers and programmers have to
come in and clean up the mess they make, which is invariably an order
of magnitude more expensive than it would have been to pay a qualified
person to do the job right.
I'll bet the jerkoff who wrote this article wouldn't know what a Web
page was if one bit him in the ass. Most of the "Web" pages produced
by people like him are not Web pages, but IE pages, and will
mercifully die once Winblows desktops are no longer the dominant tool
used for Web browsing. One can only hope that their "authors" will
then take the hint and find some other form of employment for which
they are qualified, but more than likely, they won't; they'll probably
hunt down the very worst "bad HTML" generation tool available for
whatever new platform they choose, and continue to pollute the Web and
everything else they touch with stuff whose quality makes Winblows
itself look good by comparison.
My gripe is not against the idea of tools that make hard things
simpler. Any good tool does that. Nor is it against those who use
such tools. As a software developer I use some such tools and develop
others. My problem is with the incredibly poor quality of "tools"
that claim to produce Web pages or mission-critical database
applications, but instead produce garbage, and with those who refuse
to do even the minimal amount of learning about their own chosen
profession to realize that the output produced by those tools is
garbage.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: 20 Jan 2001 15:10:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dunno what this guy had, it was likely not anything
> too advanced. Whatever it was it was probably
> Black Market and cost him a small mint.
Not necessarily. BZ-34 was publically available in SU in 1987.
Sure, it wasn't too advanced (it only had a 98B RAM and it did
about two operations a second) and it cost about 50 roubles
(which was a pretty large part of an average worker's monthly
salary), but it was a real programmable calculator.
More advanced, and cheaper, things, such as the MK-54 and friends,
followed until SU crashed in 1991. I don't know what happened
to the electronics concern that manufactured them.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We'll have solar energy when the power companies develop a sunbeam meter.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:11:37 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:02:30 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How true. That seems to be ol' jedi's way of not hearing things.
He tries to wear you down by dancing around the subject with cute
words and phrases, all the time avoiding the the direct question. He
hopes you will get tired of repeating yourself and go away and thus
let him off the hook.
I've had him pinned to the wall several times and it's fun to watch
him squirm.
Example of a typical jedi exchange of words:
Me: So exactly how DO I turn off DAE mode in kscd?
jedi: DAE mode is simply an application based switch.
Me: So HOW DO I turn off DAE mode in kscd?
jedi: The difference between digital and analog is superflous.
Me: So How Do I turn off DAE mode in kscd?
jedi: kscd is not Linux.
Me :So how DO I turn off DAE mode in kscd?
jedi: You are an idiot.
And on and on.....
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:17:34 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Well, here we go.
>
> I've got the "Linux Desktop" on order, from a company listed on
> linux.org. Its an 850MHz Athlon with 128 Meg of ram and a 40G ATA 100
> drive. CD-writer, printer, Logitech wheel mouse, PCI modem and a cheap
> Ethernet card; 19 inch monitor. RedHat 7.0, and I paid the extra bucks
> for the Deluxe box.
>
> It should be here next week. I didn't get the dual-boot option, but I
> plan to install 95, and maybe NT, once its up and running. So here we
> have a real-world comparison, taking into account and reflecting on the
> monopoly, pre-load, and ease of installation. The Win-whiners aren't
> going to agree, of course, but I think seeing just how easy it is to
> install 95 or NT on a box that has Linux preloaded is going to be very
> instructive. I've said I'd never build a PC from scratch again, and
> would prefer an OEM earned their profit by integrating the system for
> me. But in this case, the exact same hardware is supported by the same
> vendor as a dual-boot option, (can you believe it? an OEM selling
> dual-boot), so I don't think I'm going out on a limb. Plus which, if
> Windows for some reason is too much of a hassle to get up, I'll still
> have a functional system, so that might help eliminate the 'frustration
> and desperation factor' which so badly reflects on the monopoly in the
> typical scenario.
>
Welcome to the Linux world!
You already have got some warning about gcc 2.96, so I will
skip the subject.
Installing Windows after Linux is hardly a good idea,
because MS doesn't take into account your having anything
else on your HD, and wipes clean everything. HowTo's mainly
deal with installing Linux after Windows.
>From my experience you may trick Windows installation only
by making Linux partitions temporary invisible. Windows
doesn't tamper with invisible partitions, because they're
used for the 'save to disk' feature of laptops.
Using Power Quest's Partition Magic and Boot Magic (they
both can be started from diskette) you should be able to
cope with it.
I've done a number of installation tricks, so, when you're
ready to play, let us know. Maybe I can be of some help.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: 20 Jan 2001 15:19:53 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Second, as with the TCO debates, until empirical studies on Linux are
: available, you're just spouting hot air about Linux's average MTTF.
Linux doesn't fail often enough to produce meaningful MTBF statistics.
For all practical purposes the MTBF for Linux versions > 1.0 is
infinite.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: 20 Jan 2001 15:20:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: ROTFLMAO! Mean time to failure (MTTF) is a term that is applied to
: non-repairable parts such as light bulbs. If this isn't a typographical
: error, then even a reboot won't fix it; replacement is necessary.
: The temptation to say this isn't a typo is strong... very strong.
I assumed that MTBF was what was meant.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:21:57 +0100
SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse) wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:28:15 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Yes, I know that getting Windows to 'play nice' will still be tricky.
>>I'm wondering if anyone knows where there is a good step-by-step, or at
>>least a how-to, on this? I've been looking, but there's SO much about
>>Linux available that its really tough to know where to look.
>Buy system commander. It's the easiest way to go.
>You can do the lilo thing, but that gets you into the guts.
Is there anything system commander can do that XOSL cannot? I don't know
what licence XOSL uses, but both the binary and source code are freely
available at www.xosl.org. You might also want to look at the Ranish
partion manager at http://www.users.intercom.com/~ranish/part/ .
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:23:44 GMT
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:06 -0500, "JS PL" <jim@wauseon_com> wrote:
>What do you want me to do, film it happening?
>I didn't do anything to the configuration. It's the default install. It
>plays an MP3 ONCE.
Can't say I've ever seen that one before. I do find the players
pathetic looking though compared to Windows players.
> Among other things. Sometimes it won't run ANY programs.
>Sometimes it runs some of them. It just does whatever it wants to do I
>guess. I click an icon and say to myself " I wonder if this will run today?"
I've had this exact same thing happen to me under kde as well as
Enlightenment. With Enlightenment the app was really running because
it was in the task list, but it was not visible. Clicking on it in the
list would bring it to life. Inconsistent and very weird.
Under kde, the apps just wouldn't start. If I could figure out the
command to get them going, I would try executing them from a terminal
window to see the message, which was usually some cryptic mess.
Restarting kde, not Linux usually fixed the problem except if it was
the terminal app then I was unable to get out of kde because x would
go into a loop flashing the screen and putting me right back where I
was. And the kill X key combo didn't work either. I had to open an
alternate console and kill -9 the xserver.
This would happen over and over again with kde, not with Enlightenment
or Gnome.
Gnome had it's own problems though, sprinkling my system with time
bombs all over the place.
Applications would just die for some reason or another.
I can see why you Linvocates like fwvm or twm or blackbox.
>Funny thing is, Windows 2000 on the exact same hardware runs perfectly all
>the time. Go figure...
>
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: 20 Jan 2001 15:26:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I get the feeling the Unix community see extended uptimes as perhaps
: the last issue of significance they have to hammer MS with.
Mafia$oft thinks UNIX/Linux are their greatest threat.
We say its own products are Mafia$oft's greatest threat.
And, ironically, Mafia$oft's own numbers back us up.
: If the
: above figures are accurate then MS are very rapidly closing that door.
: Consider that W2K SP1 is now out and the incremental improvement of
: software is generally greatest with the first service pack.
Same shit I've been hearing Mafia$oft and its paid trolls bleat for
15+ years now.
I'll believe it when I see it.
All I see right now is that people running W2K on anything other than
Tier 1 hardware are finding it completely unusable, and that most of
them are going back to Win98 or WinME. (Server deployments of W2K are
statistically insignificant, even in long-time NT shops.)
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:56:43 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > I did just that some time ago.
> > The result was Apache first, IIS second, and various others third.
> > Unix first, NT/2K second, linux third.
>
> Could you repost them, or direct us to the link in deja?
http://x76.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=689372007.1&CONTEXT=980002612.10
15218251&hitnum=2
Top 100 sites: 34 Solaris, 32 MS OS, 20 Linux, 7 FreeBSD, 2 HP-UX, 2 BSD/OS,
1 AIX, 1 Compaq Tru64/Digital Linux, 1 IRIX
Web Servers: 35 Apache, 31 IIS, 20 Netscape Enterprise, 2 known, 1
Netscape-Communications, 1 Oracle Web Listener , 1 Lotus-Domino, 1 WW, 1
GWS, 1 AOLserver, 1 AV, 1
This�is�a�real�operating�system�from�the�free�world (very strange name), 1
Zeus, 1 JavaWebServer, 1 Mediasurface, 1 IBM-Planetwide
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:28:37 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:09:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>I believe if you hunt around on the SB site you will find the link.
>But as for the driver, it's on every Linux distribution sold.
>You just load the module EMU10K1.o
But that's not what you originally said Charlie.
You tried to lie without actually going to the website and looking,
and you got caught.
>And with this driver loaded, I have two debian boxes playing
>XMMS or Napster just about all the time.
Not out the S/pidf ports you don't.
>Saw Richard Stallman on the RealPlayer tonight.
Sounds exciting :(
>Giving his sermon.
It's all been said before.
>Charlie
>
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: 20 Jan 2001 15:29:29 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> > A company that shuts down it's PC's at night can save millions in
:> > electricity bills.
:>
:> Maybe the mom and pop store that has on PC in the back for inventory
:> might be better served by shutting down, but a large company? Are you
:> serious? The time lost in productivity waiting for all the
:> workstations to cycle back up is by _far_ greater than the few
:> dollars saved in electricity. Although with Windows workstations
:> this might be valid. The time lost in productivity due to Windows
:> crashes certainly might be greater than the time to power up. That
:> might make daily reboots worth it. That's an indictment of Windows,
:> however.
: See my response to mlw. Productivity in most companies is not hinged on how
: long a computer takes to boot. They spend more time in meetings, on coffee
: and cigarette breaks, talking with other co-workers, etc.
If you *have* to reboot the piece of shit several times a day, then
reboot time matters a great deal.
And while the company you work for may not expect you to actually
work, most companies do.
Joe
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:17:08 GMT
In article <MGda6.1010$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94blks$5ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi "sfcybear",
> >
> > >>
> > >
>
http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
> >
> > Also, apparantly linux is able to scale to 20,000 processors.
> >
> > Compared to windows 2000 datacenter's alleged 32.
> >
> > Thats a pretty big difference.
>
> Man, this isn't even vapor.. it hasn't even been *STARTED*. They
claim to
> not have the machine ready till 2004. Lots of things will change in
both
> the Linux and Windows side before then.
>
>
But no one is even TALKING about this kind of project on W2K! Never mind
that Linux already has more and faster clusters on the world's fastest
computers that MS does:
#84 Linux: http://www.cs.sandia.gov/cplant/doc/faq.html#q2
#94 Linux: http://www.fsl.noaa.gov/
#215 Linux: http://kepler.sfb382-zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/start.shtml
#395 NetBSD/Linux: http://pdswww.rwcp.or.jp/
#413 NT: http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SCD/Hardware/
But facts don't seem to mean much to you, do they?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:30:32 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:52:49 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What he doesn't realise is that the SBLive sound drivers
>are now part of the Linux kernel, so of course the first alpha
>drivers that creative put out there back on 4/30/99 have
>been superseded & are no longer relevant.
And the card still doesn't function properly.
>Gee, what's this on my system?
>
>Creative EMU10K1 PCI Audio Driver, version 0.7, 21:59:44 Jan 16 2001
>PCI: Found IRQ 5 for device 00:0a.0
>emu10k1: EMU10K1 rev 6 model 0x8027 found, IO at 0xb400-0xb41f, IRQ 5
See above.....
>What's that date - January 16?
>
>ROFL
You should be crying using hald the cards features.
The OSS version, you know the one you have to pay for, is about the
best out there and even IT is not fully functional.
>jjs
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:31:58 GMT
In article <94blks$5ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi "sfcybear",
>
>>>
>> http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
>
>Also, apparantly linux is able to scale to 20,000 processors.
>
>Compared to windows 2000 datacenter's alleged 32.
>
>Thats a pretty big difference.
>
I don't know why more people don't cite Google.com for an excellent
reference on Linux Clustering capability.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:34:01 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:35:58 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Piss Poor planning on your part does NOT constitute an emergency on my part.
Actually very good planning because the card was purchased to work
with Windows and you know something? I can read the outside of the box
and every single feature the card is capable of performing works fine
under Windows and always has.
Linux is another story however.
Linux has been trying for 3 years and still can't get it right, even
WITH the co-operation of Creative.
What a sorry sight.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:35:17 GMT
In article <8n7a6.757$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:46:37 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
>> >
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly
>unscientific
>> >> > misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is counted
>> >> > as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
>> >>
>> >> Websites are websites, and should be counted as such.
>> >
>> >Right. 500 "My Cat Fluffy" websites vs 500 e-Commerce Fortune 500
>> >company web sites means the same thing.
>>
>> Please provide proof of this statement.
>> From my experience, most "My Cat Fluffy" sites are hosted
>> on places like geocities and homestead and places
>> like that because people generally don't want to
>> pay money to host something so inane.
>
>If you compare surveys from other parties (besides Netcraft), they
>mostly survey Fortune500, Global500, etc. Those numbers, IIS is
>in the lead or closely follows iPlanet and Apache is far behind.
>
>Netcraft is the only survey where Apache leads.
>
>http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
>
>Netcraft doesn't differeniate between corporate and personal
>sites. It also counts each virtual host on a hosting provider.
>
>The numbers are grossly inflated for Apache. All Netcraft's
>numbers tell us is that Apache is the choice for hosting providers,
>which we already know, so it doesn't really give us anything.
>
>As far as geocities and homestead, there are still many people
>who purchase domain names for personal sites or family web sites.
>Aside from that, many non-profit organizations, clubs, and
>other small organizations have web sites.
>
>The people who have high traffic and who have high demand use
>iPlanet and IIS. The people who show pictures of their family
>or who post meeting calendars for the local VFW use hosted
>Apache virtual hosts.
>
>-Chad
>
>
I think if you just use your brain and realize that Yahoo.com
and Google.com use apache you would quickly realize that apache
is the dominate web server on the planet. Between these two
organizations you will see 1/4 of the worlds internet computer
power. They both have clusters with thousands and thousands of
computers in them.
And they are all apache run.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:32:33 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should
> > > hold enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then
> > > park, but aparently the drive doesn't do this.
> >
> > And yet FreeBSD and Linux don't have this problem.
>
> How do you know? These drives only recently were released.
>
> Even if they don't, it's because FreeBSD and Linux don't shut down the
> computer when you halt the OS.
>
>
>
>
Wasn't that Erik F who claimed to now use FreeBSD instead of Linux?
But he does not know that FreeBSD can power off the computer??
Hell, he always tries to look like a know everything (I wonder who those
folks are who give him all those answers), yet such simple things escape
him. (I think he barely knows how to write FreeBSD, let alone how to
install it. He is just one of MicroShit's Macroshits)
And then this bullshit of the drives failure. If MicroShit does not know
how to handle those drives, they should at least try to do it with a
timeout long enough, even if this is a bad solution. But their imcompetent
programmers (who else would wite something like Wintendo98?) just did not
care, they just went ahead with the worst possible solution.
But there are other ways I think. You could try to bring the drive into
standby, then the cache will be flushed. THIS you can check for (if the
drive is on standby). If it is, you can safely shut down.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:37:19 GMT
David Brown wrote:
>
> SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse) wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:28:15 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Yes, I know that getting Windows to 'play nice' will still be tricky.
> >>I'm wondering if anyone knows where there is a good step-by-step, or at
> >>least a how-to, on this? I've been looking, but there's SO much about
> >>Linux available that its really tough to know where to look.
> >Buy system commander. It's the easiest way to go.
> >You can do the lilo thing, but that gets you into the guts.
>
> Is there anything system commander can do that XOSL cannot? I don't know
> what licence XOSL uses, but both the binary and source code are freely
> available at www.xosl.org. You might also want to look at the Ranish
> partion manager at http://www.users.intercom.com/~ranish/part/ .
I just learned that there is also a gnu program, parted,
which may be used from linux, or from a boot diskette:
http://www.gnu.org/software/parted/
Anybody used it?
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:31:50 GMT
In article <MGda6.1010$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94blks$5ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi "sfcybear",
> >
> > >>
> > >
>
http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
> >
> > Also, apparantly linux is able to scale to 20,000 processors.
> >
> > Compared to windows 2000 datacenter's alleged 32.
> >
> > Thats a pretty big difference.
>
> Man, this isn't even vapor.. it hasn't even been *STARTED*. They
claim to
> not have the machine ready till 2004. Lots of things will change in
both
> the Linux and Windows side before then.
Um, to install 10,000 to 20,000 computers in 4 years would mean they
would be installing 2,500 to 5,000 computers a year. That is an
impressive number when you think of the issues involved! I'll be
impressed if they get it done by the end of 2006. But hey Eric, Show us
anything that indecates that ANYONE is even THINKING of doing the same
with W2K.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:33:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if you are planning to run something like Windows Whistler, you'd need
> something as powerfull as that!
Ever wonder why they call it Whistler? Is that what you become while
waiting for it to boot, Again?
>
> kiwiunixman
>
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > kiwiunixman wrote:
> > >
> > > Not as good at the SGI Origin Server I have in my living room, or
the
> s/900z
> > > sitting in my basement :)
> >
> >
> > Yeah, well I've got a starfire *cluster* in my college room, just
next
> > to my P133.
> > -Ed
> >
> >
> > > kiwiunixman
> > >
> > > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:942k6n$etp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I know these stories have been popping up often, but it's hard
to get
> too
> > > > blas� about 2 Teraflops of computing power.
> > > >
> > > > http://lwn.net/daily/ibm-ncsa.php3
> > > >
> > > > (No crosspost to nt.advocacy because that would just be mean :-)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward
Rosten
> > weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> > - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> > |eng.ox.ac.uk
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
