Linux-Advocacy Digest #654, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Things that annoy me in Mandrake Linux (Mig)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Things that annoy me in Mandrake Linux (Mig)
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The nature of competition ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 review ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 review ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:11:00 GMT
In article <9e8jfm$fqi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> pull the other one. It's got bells on.
JINGLE! JINGLE!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:12:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Linux was around "years ago". Yet IBM chose _not_ to use it.
>
> So. You could say the same about Windows. What's your point? You
> claimed that the group of computers used by SETI was 10 times faster than
> any supercomputer. You were wrong.
I based my claim on the SETI/Intel Website. So they were wrong - no doubt
being optimistic in their claim.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things that annoy me in Mandrake Linux
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 00:12:27 +0200
kosh wrote:
> In both the online help and in the book it tells exactly what each level
> means and does. The problem is many click on the item without reading any
> documentation.
Unless one has not the book
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:14:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Linux was around "years ago". Yet IBM chose _not_ to use it.
>
> Are we on another national bullshit campaign here Pete?
>
> Linux was around "years ago". Yet IBM chose _not_ to use it.
Yes, IBM chose not to use Linux in this case.
> What am I doing? I'm arguing with a total nitwit...
Yes it is tedious arguing with you.
> But Pete's goal is to force you to waste time having
> to stop and take care of a baby.
Yes, Linux does need taking care of, doesn't it?
BTW, found a new job yet? Found one _not_ supporting NT?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:14:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > The Intel one only runs on Windows. They chose it because it's the most
> > popular.
>
> Are you claiming that SETI will not run on Linux on x86?
No, I'm saying the Intel one doesn't run on anything except Windows.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:15:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > The Intel one only runs on Windows. They chose it because it's the most
> > popular.
>
> What crap. I have been running seti on sparc linux and intel linux for
> months.
Yes, you can run the SETI one, but can you run the cancer research one on
Linux?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things that annoy me in Mandrake Linux
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 00:19:43 +0200
David Steinberg wrote:
> Mig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : 1) If you change the security settings to "high security" only root can
> : play sound.
> : Fix: chmod a+w /dev/dsp
>
> : Now thats a stupid thing (or is it really??).
>
> It seems like high security to me. A good way would be to give it 0664
> permissions, make it owned by a group called something like "audio", and
> then just add the users whom you want to be able to play audio to that
> group.
>
> That's the way Debian does it.
I dont think thats it. I added the users to the group "audio" without the
desired effect. Doing things the way Mandrake does is encouraging to lower
security since users then tend to run as root if they want basic stuff to
function
> : Why is one not warned and has to waste long time on resolving this?
>
> If you ask me, it should tell you exactly what constitutes the various
> security levels. I hate it when vague terms like "high," "medium," and
> "low" are used without explanation.
Unfortunattely thats the way they chose to it and without any documentation
connected to the "act". This not a huge problem for someone like me - but
is a major annoyance for someone just converted to Linux or a complete
newbie. I believe Windows-,MAC- and newbie-users are Mandrakes prime target.
I very much like the Mandrake approach to security in 8.0 - its very tight.
Now they should just get rid of the annoyances and maybe end with a true
userfriendly system in 8.1 or 8.2 :-)
> --
> David Steinberg -o)
> Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
>
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:20:47 +1200
> > Personally, I have only ever seen programming jobs at 65K to 85K in New
> > Zealand dollars. 100k US$ is way, way over the top.
>
> Like I said, if you factor in benefits, taxes, social security, cube space
> (it costs money to house the programmer as well), etc... For a $70k
> programmer, you could easily be over 100k with everything else factored
in.
>
> But, having said that, it's not uncommon to find actual programmer
salaries
> over 100k, especially on the coasts where cost of living is quite high.
Ok, say, $NZ100,000:
First $NZ38,000 = $NZ7410
38,001 ---> 59,999 = $NZ7259.34
60,000 ---> = $NZ15600
Total Tax = $NZ30269.34
Total Income, minus tax = $NZ69,730
Thats with all the tax taken off. Whose complaing about that?
Mattthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:18:12 GMT
In article <9e83uh$7im$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> It doesn't: it is not a computer. There are huge differences between SETI
> and ASIC White (et al.) SETI is not controlled from a single node and is
> useful for only a tiny range of problems due to very loose copuling.
>
> For the *vast* majority of supercomputer problems, SETI is useless.
Like I said, it's a loosely coupled supercomputer. Anything that requires
massive numbers of machines working on a small part of the whole is
suitable for this type of processing. Like raytracing for instance. Like
CGI in a film for instance. Like the film Titanic!
How many Alpha workstations were doing that one? Half running NT, the
other half Linux.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:19:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Windows 9x maybe, but not so Windows 2000.
>
> Yes, and XP to boot.
That's your dogma.
> >Can Linux do 3D sound yet? It's built into Windows but not so easy on Linux.
>
> "Can X do N yet?" is not a sign of technological advancement; that's all
> just market grind bullshit. You gotta get it rock-solid
> industrial-quality, first, THEN you can start wondering if W2K *might*
> be somewhere near the technology standard of Linux.
You gotta get Linux desktop up to scratch before it can even compete with
Windows (98).
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:00:56 GMT
In article <EmDN6.11336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Meanwhile I could boot Linux and get online just fine. Just goes
> to show how "stable" win98 is.
Windows 98 is not stable. I've said that before. It's based on an
unprotected memory model, a "house-of-cards", if you like. Windows 2000
is supposed to be the stable one.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:33:21 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It is the same chip. HP is involved in this chip seriously.
> It will be Intel's next generation chip.
No, it's not the same chip.
> But I found it particularly funny when you highlighted that it
> was a risc chip. EF says it was made by HP. HP doesn't make
> chips EF. They never have.
Really? Tell that to HP then.
http://www.cpus.hp.com/technical_references/8500.shtml
"The PA-8500 processor, now under development at Hewlett-Packard's
Engineering Systems Lab in Ft. Collins, Colorado, is the latest addition to
the PA-RISC[1,2] family of processors. "
http://www.cpus.hp.com/
"Welcome to the Hewlett-Packard's microprocessor design labs, part of the
Systems VLSI Technology Operation (SVTO). "
In fact, the PA-8700 was just introduced this year.
> Now if it IS a RISC chip which is going to be Intel's new
> premier top of the line bread and butter chip, I'm going
> laugh out loud.
The IA-64 is *BASED* on PA-RISC technology, it is *NOT* the same chip.
> What I was told was current HP-9000's have had the IA-64 in them
> and they are slow IA-64's which run under 500 mhz.
You are wrong. Current HP-9000's have the PA-8700 PA-RISC in them, and they
run anywhere from 800Mhz to 1Ghz.
> The ones which are to hit the PC market will be B series
> and will be made to run faster clock cycles.
>
> We run the A series.
>
> Let's see. They have them running at 850 mhz now?
> Is that right...
Gezuz Charlie. Read HP's own fucking press release.
http://www.cpus.hp.com/technical_references/8700pr.shtml
Or, read their Itanium FAQ:
http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/introduction/faq.html
"
Q: What is the ItaniumT processor family?
A: Formerly know as IA-64, the ItaniumT processor family (IPF) is the
processor platform that will underpin the future of our computing systems.
The IPF is a breakthrough evolution in architecture, based on technology
co-invented by HP and Intel�"
Note the use of the phrase "that WILL underpin the FUTURE of our computing
systems".
Q: I already own an HP system - does it already support the ItaniumT
processor family?
A: Today's HP 9000 N-Class and L-Class servers are IPF ready and have
several IPF components designed into the current systems, including
chipsets, power supplies and cooling subsystems.
Note that current HP 9000's are Itanium *READY*, and have chipsets
compatible with Itanium, but are not shipping Itaniums.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:36:53 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e9fv4$4dl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Personally, I have only ever seen programming jobs at 65K to 85K in
New
> > > Zealand dollars. 100k US$ is way, way over the top.
> >
> > Like I said, if you factor in benefits, taxes, social security, cube
space
> > (it costs money to house the programmer as well), etc... For a $70k
> > programmer, you could easily be over 100k with everything else factored
> in.
> >
> > But, having said that, it's not uncommon to find actual programmer
> salaries
> > over 100k, especially on the coasts where cost of living is quite high.
>
> Ok, say, $NZ100,000:
>
> First $NZ38,000 = $NZ7410
> 38,001 ---> 59,999 = $NZ7259.34
> 60,000 ---> = $NZ15600
> Total Tax = $NZ30269.34
> Total Income, minus tax = $NZ69,730
>
> Thats with all the tax taken off. Whose complaing about that?
No, you're still looking at it the wrong way. When a company in the US
employs someone, they pay many things on top of the employees salary to the
US government. The employee themselves also pay taxes on the money they get
from the company.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:45:03 +1200
> Well, so far, the only real tests of price/performance that Linux machines
> have participated in is the TPC benchmark, and that showed a
> price/performance ratio of over twice that of the Win2k box.
>
> > Linux is at least as fast, if not faster.
>
> Depends on the task. Linux is *NOT* as fast or faster for things like
Video
> editing, for instance.
No one here (in COLA) ever said that it was suitable, yet, faster at
rendering videos. Yes, for raw operations Linux is faster. If I were to
render a video, I would actually get a SGI O2 w/ the video capture add-on.
MPEG compression on the fly, real time video rendering and other fancy
features at the click of a mouse button. Something Wintel users only dream
about. If you really wanted to improve the video capabilities, grab a copy
of XIG X-Server w/ advance OpenGL capabilites at a mature level which would
beat what Windows has to offer.
>
> > Linux has been proven to be more stable.
>
> It has? How? I've seen no verifiable studies that show Linux's uptime to
> be greater than anything else.
Uptime vs. the cost of the program. Windows 2000 Server at $NZ1K, say, 200
days uptime, which works out to be $5 per day, vs. Linux costs $0, say 200
days uptime which works out to be $0 per day.
> > Linux has proven to be more secure.
>
> Again, it has? What do you call the 49 security bulletins in the last 6
> months for Red Hat?
Most people I know who run servers use Debian. Hence that comment is just a
psuedo fact.
> > Linux is free.
>
> More of that ambiguity.
Yet again I emphasise, most Linux admins use Debian, which is, FREE!
> > So, why would anyone choose a Microsoft solution?
>
> Software.
No, alignment with the strong company in the industry. If you are a start
up, you want to align yourself with a big software vendor and use that
alignment to create alliances with larger companies.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:47:54 +1200
--
I am the blue screen of death,
no body can hear your screams
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <EmDN6.11336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > Meanwhile I could boot Linux and get online just fine. Just goes
> > to show how "stable" win98 is.
>
> Windows 98 is not stable. I've said that before. It's based on an
> unprotected memory model, a "house-of-cards", if you like. Windows 2000
> is supposed to be the stable one.
Windows 200 is alright, however, it is not as good as linux 2.4.4, Solaris
or n any other re-iterations of UNIX.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 review
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:53:09 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e9ccl$291$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Geepers mate. I was comparing Windows 2000 SP1 to Windows 2000 SP2. If it
> was, say, Windows 2000 SP2 vs. SuSE Linux 7.1, I would have gone with SuSE
> Linux 7.1. Erik proclaims Windows for EVERYTHING,
No, I don't. In fact, I've stated on many occasions that I use FreeBSD for
my own personal server, and I use Linux for my firewall. My argument is
usually about baseless claims like "Linux is proven to be more secure".
It's not proven. It may be, but such proof does not exist in any kind of
empiracal study. Further, you'll also note that most of my arguments tend
to be about debunking wild claims made by Linux zealots.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:57:40 +1200
> >
> > Ok, say, $NZ100,000:
> >
> > First $NZ38,000 = $NZ7410
> > 38,001 ---> 59,999 = $NZ7259.34
> > 60,000 ---> = $NZ15600
> > Total Tax = $NZ30269.34
> > Total Income, minus tax = $NZ69,730
> >
> > Thats with all the tax taken off. Whose complaing about that?
>
> No, you're still looking at it the wrong way. When a company in the US
> employs someone, they pay many things on top of the employees salary to
the
> US government. The employee themselves also pay taxes on the money they
get
> from the company.
Ok, I forgot one thing, the ACC levy, which is something really, really
small. NZ removed the right to sue back in the 1970's, and instead, there is
instant compesation via ACC in which all employers pay into per year. That
levy is based on, like nomal insurace, how many times employees have claimed
against the company, hence, it is an incentive to ensure that the workplace
is safe. The company tax rate in New Zealand is 33% and GST is levied at
12.5% on ALL goods and services, regardless of whether it is sold via the
net or at a local store.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 00:39:13 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> GreyCloud wrote:
> >
> >Possibly... but in a nuclear reactor there is a phenomena known as the
> >"Blue Light" effect. The gov. has concluded that the blue light are
> >photons travelling faster than the speed of light... sort of a doppler
> >effect.
> >
> >--
>
>
> Funny thing. The last physicist from a sub I met told me the same
> thing. They were particles which never slowed down below the
> speed of light.
>
> So interstellar travel is possible.
You can't get information on this one, sorry.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 00:49:29 +0200
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b080a1d$0$37294$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:2aSN6.1502$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > Okay, did you try asking what is wrong in non-advocacy group?
> >
> > Usually the advocacy groups are the best place to find out if something
> > *can* be fixed, even if you don't get all the details. I can't
reproduce
> > this thing - it just happens a couple of times a day on machines that
> > are serving somewhere less than a million hits each a day and about
> > 10% of those involve a transformNode operation. It may involve
> > an error in the http GET of the xml data, or an error in the data
> > format returned from the backend xml data servers, but I don't
> > think that excuses any service popping a dialog box and waiting.
No, Avocacy groups *might* give you a hint or two, non-advocacy group can
usually give you the link to the solution.
microsoft.public.xml, microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general,
microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.components, microsoft.public.inetserver.iis
would be a good start.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 review
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:05:52 +1200
--
I am the blue screen of death,
no body can hear your screams
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:iVXN6.2465$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e9ccl$291$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Geepers mate. I was comparing Windows 2000 SP1 to Windows 2000 SP2. If
it
> > was, say, Windows 2000 SP2 vs. SuSE Linux 7.1, I would have gone with
SuSE
> > Linux 7.1. Erik proclaims Windows for EVERYTHING,
>
> No, I don't. In fact, I've stated on many occasions that I use FreeBSD
for
> my own personal server, and I use Linux for my firewall. My argument is
> usually about baseless claims like "Linux is proven to be more secure".
> It's not proven. It may be, but such proof does not exist in any kind of
> empiracal study. Further, you'll also note that most of my arguments tend
> to be about debunking wild claims made by Linux zealots.
>
I stand corrected. Aguements like, "Linux is more flexible" is based on a
fact, however, "Linux is proven to be more secure" is based sole on a
opinion. Yes, Linux can be is more secure in that if you were to shut down
every service un required, you would less likely be hacked, however, Windows
is not the same, esp, with the latest IE, ActiveX, it is almost impossible
to properly secure a Windows machine, unless you are willing to shell out
money for a thrid party firewall.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 23:07:57 GMT
In article <KCXN6.2463$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It is the same chip. HP is involved in this chip seriously.
>> It will be Intel's next generation chip.
>
>No, it's not the same chip.
>
I read this.
>> But I found it particularly funny when you highlighted that it
>> was a risc chip. EF says it was made by HP. HP doesn't make
>> chips EF. They never have.
>
>Really? Tell that to HP then.
>
>http://www.cpus.hp.com/technical_references/8500.shtml
>
>"The PA-8500 processor, now under development at Hewlett-Packard's
>Engineering Systems Lab in Ft. Collins, Colorado, is the latest addition to
>the PA-RISC[1,2] family of processors. "
>
>http://www.cpus.hp.com/
>
>"Welcome to the Hewlett-Packard's microprocessor design labs, part of the
>Systems VLSI Technology Operation (SVTO). "
>
>In fact, the PA-8700 was just introduced this year.
>
>> Now if it IS a RISC chip which is going to be Intel's new
>> premier top of the line bread and butter chip, I'm going
>> laugh out loud.
>
>The IA-64 is *BASED* on PA-RISC technology, it is *NOT* the same chip.
>
It's the same instruction set...
>> What I was told was current HP-9000's have had the IA-64 in them
>> and they are slow IA-64's which run under 500 mhz.
>
>You are wrong. Current HP-9000's have the PA-8700 PA-RISC in them, and they
>run anywhere from 800Mhz to 1Ghz.
>
>> The ones which are to hit the PC market will be B series
>> and will be made to run faster clock cycles.
>>
>> We run the A series.
>>
>> Let's see. They have them running at 850 mhz now?
>> Is that right...
>
>Gezuz Charlie. Read HP's own fucking press release.
>
>http://www.cpus.hp.com/technical_references/8700pr.shtml
>
>Or, read their Itanium FAQ:
>
>http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/introduction/faq.html
>
>"
>Q: What is the ItaniumT processor family?
>A: Formerly know as IA-64, the ItaniumT processor family (IPF) is the
>processor platform that will underpin the future of our computing systems.
>The IPF is a breakthrough evolution in architecture, based on technology
>co-invented by HP and Intel�"
>
>
>
>Note the use of the phrase "that WILL underpin the FUTURE of our computing
>systems".
>
>Q: I already own an HP system - does it already support the ItaniumT
>processor family?
>A: Today's HP 9000 N-Class and L-Class servers are IPF ready and have
>several IPF components designed into the current systems, including
>chipsets, power supplies and cooling subsystems.
>
>
>
>Note that current HP 9000's are Itanium *READY*, and have chipsets
>compatible with Itanium, but are not shipping Itaniums.
>
>
Okay, same instruction set and same pin set also.
But it's not the same chip then.
Well, okay....
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
