Linux-Advocacy Digest #634, Volume #32 Sun, 4 Mar 01 09:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad! (pip)
Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum? (pip)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Giuliano Colla)
Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad! (Brett Randall)
Re: Why can't Apple do it? (John Rudd)
Re: State of linux distros (Stuart Krivis)
Re: State of linux distros (Stuart Krivis)
Re: State of linux distros (Stuart Krivis)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Karel Jansens)
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Stuart Krivis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 12:28:03 +0000
Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> Is this walkin' the walk? Or what?
> http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/linux/passport.swf
How cool!
$1bn is not just marketing fluff - but a statement that this large
groaning monolithic creature has seen the light for some time now.
Does it make the specs that the Linux community needs to write drivers
for it's peripherals available? (For those of us who can't afford a
big-iron server this is of more importance I think)
This is just another great step towards better computing. It may be a
bandwagon for companies - but who cares?
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 12:34:33 +0000
Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
> >
> > In article <iZsh6.339615$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "KLH"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a real purpose to this forum?
> >
> > 1) To advocate ( or dis-advocate ) Linux.
> >
> > 2) To keep all that crap out of the other forums.
>
> 3) Waste time.
>
> 4) Procrastinate my weekend chores.
5) to argue for the sake of it
6) as a programming break
7) better than crap game shows on TV
8) keeps us of the streets
9) INN "testing"
10) to say to some people - "hey there is this wonderful open OS that
you can use" and to say to others that "in many respects it sucks".
Having polarized views is bad for Linux.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 12:49:08 GMT
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > JS PL wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one
> who
> > > has
> > > > > > > ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to
> pay
> > > > > extra
> > > > > > > for an OS they didn't want.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, they have.
> > > > >
> > > > > How so? At what time in history has it been impossible to buy the
> > > hardware
> > > > > to build your own computer? Seems to me that individual hardware
> > > channels
> > > > > were there long before people were building and selling packages
> that
> > > > > included MS Windows. Your about as dumb as they come.
> > > >
> > > > The average consumer has no more interest in building his own
> > > > computer from scratch as he does in building a kit car.
> > > >
> > > > now fuck off and die, idiot.
> > >
> > > That's not the point. It doesn't matter if NO ONE want's to build their
> own
> > > computer. The fact is, all the components are available and have always
> been
> > > available to buy a computer with any or no operating system you choose.
> > > Therefore, no possibility of a monopoly. Anyone who utters the sentence
> > > "Microsoft has a monopoly" is clearly advertising their own ignorance.
> Wait
> > > and see what the appeals court says.
> >
> > You mean that if someone takes control of all the commerce of grain in
> > USA, imposing exclusive contracts with all farmers, and owning all the
> > warehouses where grain is stored, it could not be possibly sued for
> > monopolistic action on the ground that you may grow grain in your back
> > yard? I believe you're out of your mind, son.
>
> You forget, grain unlike software cannot be duplicated to infinity at almost
> no cost. If it could, there could be no monopoly on grain just as there can
> be no monopoly on software. Software isn't a finite resource.
You mean that I can duplicate software and resell it without infringing
EULA? If I could do that, then you'd be right, but I'm afraid you're
wrong. Software is a finite resource as long as ownership is retained by
someone which just distributes licenses of usage.
> Two clicks from one of the most visited pages on earth is monopoly
> prevention:
> http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
> and always has been.
Nice link, what does it have to do with the subject? The word monopoly
doesn't appear in that page.
I'd suggest you to try:
http://www.fiat.com/
Nothing to do with the subject either, but It has nicer colors.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: It's here! IBM's new Linux ad!
From: Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 12:55:19 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tim Hanson wrote:
>>
>> Is this walkin' the walk? Or what?
>>
>> http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/linux/passport.swf
>> --
>> "Never underestimate the power of a small tactical nuclear weapon."
>
> valid URL, but ust black-colored page .. :-(
>
you may need to install flash...
--
Calvin: I've been thinking, Hobbes
Hobbes: On a weekend?
Calvin: Well, it wasn't on purpose...
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 04:58:28 -0800
From: John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Apple do it?
Ziya Oz wrote:
>
> Donald A. Yacktman wrote:
>
> > That's three pretty basic cases that IMHO could benefit right now: iMovie,
> > iDVD, and games.
>
> > Ten years ago people like you were saying the same thing -- that the
> > computers we had were planty fast enough and we'd never need anything faster.
>
> > You can take a similar visionless stance today, but you'll be similarly proven
> > wrong as time passes.
>
> Wow, Maybe those extra CPUs will provide some people the means to pay
> attention to what other people actually are saying.
No. Never pay attention to what people are _saying_. The people
predicting the future of the industry are almost always idiots and
gossip collumnists (and most often of all, idiot gossip collumnists).
Pay attention to what people and companies are _doing_.
Talk is cheap.
>
[snip long and oblique description of subscription based computing, and
how it will eclipse the growth of power in desktop computing, with the
implication that this will be the future for consumers]
Here's my bold prediction for the next 10 years (and it's a general
enough topic that I'll open up the newsgroups a little in case people
want to talk about it):
Subscription based computing in the consumer space will fail. (ie. .Net
is nothing to worry about, and will only be useful to people well
outside of the consumer space)
Here's why:
People think about their computers in terms of what they can directly
do. When they bring home a computer they want it to be able to do
things without having to put disposable income further into it. When
Joe buys a spreadsheet, he wants to be able to use the spreadsheet
without paying more for it than the initial charge. When he's balancing
his budget, he doesn't want to pay for each and every re-calculation as
he tries to make trade-offs between family vacation and family movie
nights. They weren't willing to pay per-unit charges for net access,
and they wont be willing to pay per-unit charges for cpu time either.
And even with the net, they've got less choice than with their CPU. If
you want to be productive with your CPU you've got choices like rolling
your own programs, buying programs, or (soon) paying per-use charges.
But with the net, they have little choice. ISP's pretty much don't
offer one time up front charges. Instead they offer unlimited use
subscriptions that are paid on large time units (months, quarters,
semi-anual, and anual), but originally the common model _was_ per-use
charges (both by bandwidth and by amount of time used in a month).
Users overwhelmingly rejected that model (by voting with their feat to
leave ISPs that wouldn't switch models). Once they plop down cash for a
month, they want unlimited use within that month. Similarly, they will
want unlimited use of their computer and its programs without paying for
CPU cycles.
For one, it's just basic economy. When Johnny sits down to add special
effects to the home movie he and his friends just made, he's not going
to get permission from his parents to run up a huge bill on CPU usage.
He's going to use (and thus base his opinion of his computer's power
upon) his local cpu and program power. If he wins a local art contest,
he wont waste that prize money by throwing it away on a one time charge
to render his next art/talent contest, he'll buy a bigger CPU with a
better program so that he can keep using it over and over again.
Per-use charges are _disposable_ cpu power, not reusable cpu power. The
same thing goes with playing Quake XVI ... you may be willing to pay
$30/month to your ISP and $10/month to a game hosting service, but once
you've paid that you're not going to want to pay per-game-minute
charges, nor are you going to want to pay per-cpu-cycle charges. Given
the choice between unlimited use for an upfront payment and per-unit
charges, most people will choose a platform and program that gives them
unlimited use.
The people for whom subscription based computing will make sense are
those projects which can justify one time disposable cpu power. When a
movie studio is done with the coreographing of the polygons into
characters and scenes, they can justify a one time expenditure to render
it. They wont pay subscription for the cpu cycles for the production,
but they will for major rendering events. Similarly, a major software
engineering organization will do development on owned cpus, and then
might do the major code merges and compiles on rented cpu time. The
same goes for a major R&D project that will do small tests of their
physical simulation code on owned CPUs, but then pay per-cpu charges for
major runs of the simulation (assuming the project's budget justifies
it). These types of projects and entities can justify the expenditure
of disposable cpu time for major events. But they wont pay it for
regular use, nor will they pay it for minor events.
In a sense, subscription based computing is a step backwards in
computing history, not a step forward. What you're basically talking
about is the same type of situation that people had with mainframes.
They'd build up a batch, and then send the batch off to be processed by
a mainframe. They'd pay expensive amounts of money for mainframe time,
and do as much as they could without taking up time on the mainframe.
The growth of powerful local processing on PCs is precisely what killed
this processing model. Subscription based computing in the modern sense
will give high end processing projects a more powerful means of using
the mainframe model than they had before, but it's not a valuable model
for the consumer user.
And to bring it back to the original point, that means that consumers
WILL still be pushing PC makers to build bigger and faster computers to
run bloatware 2010, play Quake XVII with a true immersive environment,
and to make home movies that are more creative and visually stunning
than the entire Star Wars series of movies. They wont send their home
movies off to be rendered on a CPU farm, they wont send their
spreadsheet data out to be calculated on CPU farms, and they wont pay
per-cpu charges to play games of ever increasing complexity. They will
demand home computers with ever more power to handle their local
processing needs and desires.
2 way and 4 way personal computers have already happened (and that 4 way
personal computer only died because Apple ended the clone program). To
reject that the leap to a 16 way personal computer wont happen in the
next 10 years is pretty short sighted. It truely is up there infamous
industry quotes like the IBM top exec who predicted that the world wide
global market for computers was some small 2 digit number (IIRC), or
Gates' quote about 640k being all the memory anyone would ever need.
Subscription based computing will have a place, but it wont eclipse the
growth of the desktop system.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: 4 Mar 2001 08:05:01 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:17:17 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Reefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>ah, but C'MON.....like i said before; this is the year 2001, and anyone
>>running a 'puter with less than a PII 300 (or compatible) and 128 MB RAM in
>>it, need some serious reality check, u cant wip a dead horse like that forever
>
>Oh really? Did you ever consider that some households have more than
>one computer? Like there's a machine for the children to play with
>while dad downloads nu.. I mean surfs the Web? Keeping two or more
>machines somewhat current can be a significant financial load.
>
And there's the whole fallacy. Why does anyone need to keep machines
current?
Would anyone buy a new house once a year simply because there are newer
ones on the market? No, because people haven't been marketed into
believing that houses become obsolete when the new models roll out.
I'm using a number of older electronic devices. They certainly perform
just as well today as they did when purchased. The only thing that has
changed is people's perception of them.
It's true that you may need the latest and greatest whatever if you need
to play the latest and greatest game, or if you are doing work that
requires really high performance. I can see why people might stay on the
cutting edge in such cases. However, for more prosaic usage, computer
hardware can remain useful until it dies. (And that can be quite a long
time.)
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: 4 Mar 2001 08:10:08 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 13:42:11 GMT, Reefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Only an idiot relegates perfectly good hardware to the dustbin
>> just because some Asshole in Redmond, Washington decrees it so
>
>
>
>hardware from the late 80's is not "perfectly good hardware"
Someone's logic is no longer perfectly good. Perhaps the mention of
reefer indicates why?
If the hardware was "perfectly good" when purchased then what would make
it less so now? As long as it still works the same as it did when
purchased it is still "perfectly good." The only thing that has changed
over time is your perception of it. And your perception has been clouded
by clouds of reefer smoke anyway, so we can completely discount that.
Come back when you graduate from high school and we'll ridicule you some
more, ok? Bye bye little man.
*plonk*
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: 4 Mar 2001 08:37:54 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:32:18 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <TSOl6.929$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Reefer"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> Only an idiot relegates perfectly good hardware to the dustbin just
>>> because some Asshole in Redmond, Washington decrees it so
>>
>>
>>
>> hardware from the late 80's is not "perfectly good hardware"
>
>If it does what you need it to, then it is perfectly good. Late 80s
>hardware is perfect for low end jobs such as fire walls, routers,
>print/mail servers etc. Why shell out �1000 for a new print server when
>you have a good one hanging around?
Cisco is still, AFAIK, selling a PIX with a P 200 inside. They charge a
lot of money for it and can't keep up with the demand.
I wonder why people will spend so much for "obsolete" hardware? :-)
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 4 Mar 2001 08:44:29 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:00:22 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The fact is that after the government privatised the railways, safety
>>> went down the tube and they're having to bail out the company that owns
>>> th railways with more public money.
>>
>> Lousy management is its own reward.
>>
>> Of course, since you guys have become sooooooo fucking socialist, all of
>
>Yeah, sure. Whatever.
>
>> your best managers left LONG ago for the United States.
>
>So its come down to "my country is better than yours" arguments. This is
>my last word on this thread.
I suppose we can throw in a gratuitous mention of Nazi conspiracies and
Hitler.
Ooops! I guess I killed the thread. :-)
All discussions on Usenet will, no matter the original
topic, devolve into an argument about one or more of a couple dozen
recurring themes. These themes have been floating around the net for
years and show no signs of dying.
All discussions will become cross-posted to more and more irrelevant
newsgroups. If left unchecked, they would be cross-posted to every
single newsgroup eventually.
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:54:32 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> > It doesn't _require_ them, it _allows_ them.
> > You get to _choose_.
> > That is a _good_ thing.
> > Unless you are a _dumb_ user.
> > In which case: do _not_ use this O/S.
>
> Allowing the choice is just as dumb.
>
No, it isn't. Unless an O/S is focusing on particularly stupid users.
> > Yes, I am happy with that.
> > Because I know how to use the feature to my advantage.
> > If you don't, stay away from it.
>
> I see.
>
> > BTW, could you enlighten us as to how you came to the conclusion that
> > "every other OS" doesn't allow for per-application printer drivers? I'm
> > interested, because I'm quite sure you're dead wrong.
>
> I'm talking about drivers in general, not just printer drivers. What
> happens if you allow one application to drive the graphics and another to
> pick a different driver?
>
Even for graphics drivers it sometimes makes sense to be able to overrride
the system settings. A blind person has absolutely no use for a monitor,
except as a designer doorstop, but a braille-bar is quite a different
thing... So, in your reasoning, a blind person who shares a computer with
seeing people would have to reboot the O/S every time (s)he wants to use
the computer?
Anything - and I mean _anything_ - that impedes choice will prove a
hindrance at a certain point in the future.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
]]] "Go go gadget linux!" Zzzooommm!! [[[
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: 4 Mar 2001 08:59:59 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:01:47 -0500, Masha Ku'Inanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm going to begin familiarizing myself w/Unix to ultimately become a Unix
>> system administrator. I've got copies of FreeBSD 4.4 (&Lite) and Linux
>> RedHat 7. I'd like to get some advice on a strategy to take to get into
>the
>> Unix Administration field.
>>
>
>Focus on the BSDs if you wish to learn UNIX, only because they are a direct
>evolution from UNIX(tm). Some call BSD UNIX, and this is subject to debate
>by others. All the UNIX variants out there are descended from AT&T's
>original implimentation, and/or Berkley's variant. Some mix features of
>both. Linux is a clone of UNIX, a work-alike, and never contained UNIX code
>and was never directly descended from UNIX.
Linux is only a kernel. You can't do much with a kernel by itself, so
people add things to make a complete system. A very common addition is
the various GNU utilities.
These GNU utilities never contained "UNIX" code and are not directly
descended from "UNIX."
So, I guess that a Solaris system with a lot of GNU utilities is not
really "UNIX."
And I'm sure that Masha is running SCO Unixware since that has the most
direct AT&T Unix heritage.
>Linux is stable. FreeBSD is considered more stable by order of magnitude.
This is not always true. It's one of those "commonly-known" things that
people bandy about.
I'm sure that I can find a conservative Linux distro that is more stable
than the latest development branch of FreeBSD...
>NetBSD is considered to be the most cross-platform version. OpenBSD is
>considered the most secure OS in the world.
The most secure in the world? I don't think so. Are you willing to bet
that it is more secure than Trusted Solaris? More secure than MVS?
OS/400? How about QNX? OpenVMS?
OpenBSD is a very well vetted version of unix, but to say it's the most
secure OS in the world is simply nonsense. It is very secure in certain
ways. It may not satisfy all needs though...
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
