Linux-Advocacy Digest #675, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:32:31 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > I had been arguing that Windows is the best development
> > platform for making desktop applications of the
> > conventional sort, not that it was ever the best
> > platform for everything.
>
> I think that this flocking of developers to windows had a lot to do with
> hardware/software costs versus other systems at that time.
That is also a consideration, but I don't see that Windows
had a very large cost advantage then.
> MS C in 1991
> was around $300 vs. VMS C for $6000 depending on how many users were
> going to use it. C on Sun at that time was $2000... funny they haven't
> increased it nor decreased its price.
Well, yes, those platforms were very pricey; they also
didn't have much to offer the desktop software
developer.
> A startup developer could enter into the windows market a lot easier at
> a lower cost than any of the other systems then.
Bear in mind that cheap DOS compilers were
also available; and Mac compilers too. (But
the Mac your customers would have to buy
was not so cheap, and this is also a consideration)
Unix and VMS aren't the only alternatives.
> Today I see the developers landscape starting to change as Linux and
> Solaris prices are now lower than windows... considering again the
> hardware for solaris is now within the grasp of the entering developer.
I do agree that this is a real factor; developers have
budgets too, and if they ar egoing to insist that
their users buy some OS, that OS had better be
within the financial reach of their users.
> Back in the 80's to get going in VMS would have cost a fortune... now
> you can get a used VAX for next to nothing with only one glitch...
> software licensing costs. Still a little high.
Yeah. I'm not sure there's much reason for those
to come down there.
[snip]
> > My argument for it at the time centered around
> > printing support. Windows provides
> > a device independant printing model that
> > lets you redirect screen drawing commands
> > to the printer. This makes WYSIWYG much
> > easier, and it is a feature shared by the Mac,
> > OS/2, and NextStep, but not by other Unixes.
>
> Unixes rely on Postscript as the default output. Drawings are output to
> postscript printers directly without any user intervention. Using a
> non-postscript printer requires the one-time set up of ghostscript. I
> have no problems with my Epson 600 under Solaris.
But it uses X for the screen display, and
this is a pain for developers; they must try
to create the same image in two very different
ways.
> > This puts those other Unixes out of the running
> > for whole categories of apps.
>
> Not true. The problem for Unix so far is the price, which is changing.
Unix is very cheap today and has been
for several years. There really isn't any
exodus of desktop application developers
that I can see.
Unix is still very largely used for servers,
and this is no suprise; it provides decent
services for such applications.
[snip]
> > NextStep used display postscript, which meant
> > that printing on PostScript printers worked
> > wonderfully, but all non-PostScript printers
> > were reduced to printing bitmaps- and the latter
> > printers are rather more common.
>
> Again, I have no problem printing any kind of graphics to my Epson 600.
You can't take advantage of the Epson's
built-in font that way. You can print much
faster if you do.
Though honestly with Epsons the results
are so nasty that it's not such a good idea. :D
But with PCL printers it's another story.
[snip]
> > The situation for printing is typical; Windows
> > has the best tools for desktop app developers,
> > OS/2 comes in second and is pretty close. Most
> > others have serious gaps, and generic Unix
> > tends to have almost no support for anything
> > that desktop apps need.
>
> That too about UNIX is not true. There is plenty of support.
I disagree. Having to compose your own
postscript and stream it out is the kind of
pain developers do not need.
It's not just painful; you can't take full
advantage of some printers when using
PostScript.
That puts you at a disadvantage, next
to the app that was written for Windows.
Of course, printing is only one area,
but for desktop apps it tends to be
an important one.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:32:31 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> >> It is when it's where the monopoly is, where 90% of your revenues are,
> >> and the only one with a consumer market.
> >
> >I think you are having difficulty with the term
> >"core"; it doesn't mean "what T Max Devlin doesn't like".
>
> It means what is most accurately, consistently, and practically
> communicated by its usage. This would not be "what Daniel thinks he'd
> like to get away with in making up bullshit to defend and encourage
> unethical and illegal behavior."
Well, I'm glad to hear it does not mean *that*!. :D
> So, now that we've got you bent over with your pants down, why don't you
> tell us what "core" means, accurately, consistently, and practically, so
> that the spanking can continue?
How about, "the smallest set of products that, if somehow
lost, would derail Microsofts business model, future
plans, etc".
[snip]
> What explanation
> besides quite concrete and non-imaginary (indeed; proven in a court of
> law and based on a century of anti-trust legislation) accounts of
> Microsoft's monopolization are you pretending I've made?
Why, none, Max. That's my complaint. You don't seem
to have any explaination for Microsoft's dominance. Oh,
you rant and rave about how they *are* dominant, and how
they've abused their dominance in various ways...
But how did they get that way?
[snip]
> >> OS/2 is a product IBM continues to make millions of dollars a year on.
> >
> >IBM's OS strategy derailed because
> >OS/2 failed to attract developers. [...]
>
> Think harder.
Oh, come on. I'll get a headache! :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:32:32 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
> >"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> micro$osoft's -main- business is first, its OS, then it window$ apps.
> >> Core doesnt mean what ever Daniel wants.
> >
> >I suppose you are trying to exclude
> >Microsoft's Unix and Macintosh apps,
> >and I would too.
>
> MS would, and has; none of us have, except your imaginary attempt just
> there to apologize for the monopoly.
What a strange sentence to put there. Did you
misparse the paragraph above, too?
> >But I still think it's unreasonable to
> >dub the vast bulk of MS's product line
> >the core of the lineup.
>
> More honestly, you pretend to, for reasons not entirely clear to any of
> us; I would expect that I'm not alone in suspecting, however, that your
> desire to claim that development tools are the 'core product line' is
> simply another attempt to apologies for the monopoly, in some way. It
> seems all you're interested in doing. I really would like to be able to
> discuss things without having it devolve to ridicule, Daniel, but your
> on-going attempts to fein stupidity are simply *never* going to rise to
> the level of any better discussion.
Well, Max, for someone who dislikes descending to
the level of ridicule, you sure indulge in a lot of it.
I had rather thought you enjoyed it. Why do it,
if you don't?
> It is unreasonable to pretend MS's product line is not primarily that
> which they have a monopoly in, the PC OS market.
What an interesting claim. I would certainly *include* their
operating systems, but I don't think it's quite limited to that.
> Sure, they produce
> many developer products and end-user applications in order to maintain
> this illegal monopoly, but any delusion these are "core products" is
> certainly not *reasonable*, no.
I'm with you all the way. :D
> Just incredibly stupid and contrary to
> the facts; MS may know they need to maintain developer lock-in to
> maintain the PC OS monopoly, but they make their money on Windows, plain
> and simple.
Sure do. They do need to provide the other side
of the development equasion though; they
have to provide compilers, IDEs, things like that.
Their dominance is based on being the platform
of choice for desktop apps, and to be that there
must be such tools.
I think that if MS relied on Borland et al to
provide them, they would no longer be able
to promulgate new technologies effectively;
they'd be at the mercy of whatever Borland
chose to support.
That's why I include the other development
tools MS makes. Or at least some of them;
FoxPro is probably just incidental. :/
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:32:33 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I had been arguing that Windows is the best development
> >platform for making desktop applications of the
> >conventional sort, not that it was ever the best
> >platform for everything.
>
> As have we.
I'm quite astonished to hear that you think
Windows is the best platform for developing
desktop applications.
If you believe that, does it not occur ot you
that Microsoft's dominance might be, at least
in part, a consequence of this fact?
> We know why it is, and for what purpose, and for what
> reason.
I doubt you know why, Max. You do not seem conversant
with the technical side of these things.
I tend to agree with you that the *reason* why MS
pursued Windows as they did was that they saw it
as a route to influence in the industry, at least in
part.
> You just pretend you don't know what "monopoly" means, rather
> like JS PL and Erik and the other sock puppets who have so much wrapped
> up in defending illegal behavior.
The trouble I have with "monopoly" is that it
means so many things, depending on who is
saying it. I never know what a particular speaker
means; he's not wrong to use this or that sense
of the word, but it's hard to understand him
without knowing which sense he has in mind.
> >I was saying, you see, that Windows was
> >near-universal on the desktop because
> >developers had flocked too it, and users
> >had to follow to use all the apps that were
> >being produced.
>
> We heard all that back in 1989, Daniel. It was bullshit then, and it is
> bullshit now.
It was true then, but the memory problems Windows
had made it unusable, so it did not much matter.
> More honestly, Windows is a monopoly on the desktop
> because of Microsoft's purposeful erection of an application barrier,
> preventing both consumers and developers from economically supporting
> free market competitors.
As far as I can see, "erecting an application barrier"
means "defining and implementing a new API".
If there's anything else to it, do let me know.
> This is illegal activity, Daniel.
If defining a new, incompatible API is
illegal, then the republic is dooooomed. :(
> So while my
> explanation and yours cover precisely the same ground, mine is honest,
> and yours is dishonest, or stupid; take your pick.
I begin to suspect that one or the other of the
terms "dishonest" and "stupid" means "doesn't
agree with me", when you say it.
Most people use the words "wrong" or
"mistaken" for that. You should try it. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:32:34 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nobody else is dumb enough to believe some preposterous rationalizations
> of unethical business practices, Daniel. The world is less naive than
> it was when MS could get away with such lies. People are skeptical
> enough to know MS is criminal, not crafty.
It's my opinion ...
... and this may be purest optimism, unadulterated
by gritty reality ...
... nut it's my opinion that actually very few peopl
are so wrapped up in their hatred of MS as to believe
that no debate or disagreement is even *possible*.
I would suggest that the majority of Microsoft's
enemies would at least admit to the existance of
actually supporters of MS who actually, you know,
mean it.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:35:15 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > Apple IIs could get CP/M as an expensive add on. You
> > had to put a Z80 in though.
> >
> > TRS-80s came with TRS-DOS, not CP/M.
> >
> > Not that it matters; a TRS-80 with CP/M is
> > still junk. :D
>
> Really? A TRS 80 running dBase was junk? Interesting.
There was a version of dBase for the TRS-80? News
to me. Sure you don't mean it's predecessor,
the "Vulcan Database"?
[snip]
> > I must say, you views on the superiority
> > of the Apple II are quite, um, unusual.
> >
> > I thought you were a Mac advocate,
> > actually.
>
> Thats what you get when you try to think. You jump to conclusions.
:D
An Apple II advocate. Who'd have thought
they still existed?
[snip]
> > Sounds like they were worried about
> > a nuisance suit, then.
>
> They were worried about the CP/M code in m$-DO$.
There certainly isn't any. CP/M ran on a different
CPU from the IBM-PC. It had not yet been
ported to the 8086.
They filched the design for sure. They couldn't
have used the actual same code.
[snip]
> > I hardly consider you an authority, either.
>
> I doubt you consider anyone an authority on anything, but yourself.
:D
> I
> have experience with Apple II (having owned and used several). You do
> not.
Don't I?
> I have generated reports on appleworks. You have not. I have the
> manual and the app and a working Apple II. You do not.
Yes, but I find you get so creative with facts.
Perhaps it's only quotes from MS executives
that you have fun with, but how can I know?
[snip]
> We are discussing microcomputers. Minis and mainframes are another
> thing. You cant compare the 3, especially in the timeframes under
> discussion. You merely use them to move goalposts or to try to confuse
> the conversation
I'm trying to drag it back to my point;
the PC was a better development platform,
and developers at the time were able to
recognize that.
> > They didn't have it on their PCs yet, but
> > they knew it was possible.
>
> Didnt have what on their PCs?
Optimizing compilers, for one thing.
[snip]
> > You aren't able to support your own claims terribly
> > well, I notice.
>
> Take your head out of the sand.
You don't seem to take *my* word
for anything, you know.
[snip]
> Why should I spend my time looking for this, when you will just
> disregard it.?
> http://apple2history.org/a/ah19.html
> "When it first appeared on the market, AppleWorks started at number 2 on
> Softalk's top thirty list. It moved to the number one spot in Apple
> sales by the following month, and stayed there for a long time. By the
> end of 1984, AppleWorks had moved into the number one spot in monthly
> retail software sales for all computers, overtaking the MS-DOS
> best-seller Lotus 1-2-3 (a spreadsheet program with graphics and
> rudimentary word processing capabilities)."
Well, I may say that you have done better than
you usually do on this one. Though it does
not suggest that it stayed on top for years,
it comes close to backing you up directly.
Better still, this article gives a cite for this
claim, and it is:
Brandt, Randy. "Enhancing AppleWorks" (video tape),
July 1993, Quality Computers
>From what I can tell, it appears that Quality
Computer was a software house that produced
AppleWorks add ons, and this Randy Brandt
was a programmer for them.
The actual video does not seem to be on
the web, but that's okay. What I'd
really like to know was where Brandt
got his figures from.
> Feel free to look other places.
Any suggestions? I'd particularly
like to find out what Brandts source
was.
[snip]
> > > It seems to me you are comparing todays micros withtt he micros of the
> > > time and calling the old machines shit becasue of what we can do
today.
> >
> > No, I'm really comparing the PC of 1981 with the
> > Apple II of 1981.
>
> Oh. well then the PC loses. Too bad. So Sad. ... NOT!!
That percetion of yours seems to be pretty unique.
> > > I have worked with each generation of micro. I can see how they have
> > > progressed.
> >
> > But you don't see how the PC was better
> > than the then-current Apple II+?
>
> No.
The Apple II+ didn't even have *lower
case* for heavens sake. The PC's
graphics were at first lousy, but
so were the Apple II+s.
[snip]
> > > When did dBase for the PC come out and did it run on a stock 5150
> > > (hopefully Ive got the model number right)?
> >
> > It came out in 1981, and it had better have run on a
> > stick 5150, 'cuz that was all you had back then.
>
> Actually, I believe Dbase II was out BEFORE the PC came out and was
> ported to it. Now, I wonder what it was running on? CP/M machines maybe?
I can't find any evidence of that, and I did look.
There was a product that predated dBase II, but it
was not a big success.
>From what I read, part of the dBase II development
process was upgrading it to 16-bit.
That suggests to me that the earlier stuff had
run on 8-bit CP/M machines; it's the closest
CPU/OS you can get.
> Apple IIs with SoftCards, maybe? Hmmmm?
Sticking a CP/M machine into an Apple II
on a card is not a particularly useful solution.
> I did take off on the PC though.
That's because the early 8 bit machines-
even the ones that had rudimentary
operating systems- were too small for
meaningful database work.
> > It was very fast turnaround, that. dBase II was
> > an extension of an earlier 8-bit product
> > (not "dBase I", but "the Vulcan Database").
>
> Thats intersting. I was under the impression that Aston-Tate was founded
> to sell dBAse II, which was written by Wayne Ratliff.
So was "the Vulcan Database".
> > This earlier product wasn't real successful,
> > but dBase II was. Things like databases
> > really need some space to get to the point
> > of being useful, you see.
>
> IIRC, people were programming in dBAse BEFORE the PC came out.
A few people were programming a precursor
to dBase.
144k floppies and 64k of RAM do not make
for very impressive database systems, though. :(
[snip]
> > I'm telling you that programmers at that
> > time could see for themselves the inadequacies
> > of the 8-bit machines.
>
> Yeah, thats why no one wrote nay apps for them, did they?
Lots of people wrote for them. They
were *much* cheaper than the minis, and
they had things like graphics supports that
the big computers usually didn't.
[snip]
> > > The entrance of IBM ptpretty much legitimized the personal computer in
> > > business.
> >
> > To some extent. IBM is like that. But PCs had been
> > used in businesses before IBM came along.
>
> And which PCs were those? TRS 80s and Apple IIs.
Especially the Apple IIs. They had fast
disks and lots of memory compared to their
competitors- in the early days.
The disks were especially important;
you could boot off them. To the end of
its days the C64 never quite got the hang
of that. :(
That, by the way, was the main thing
that distinguished the Apple II+ from
the Apple II.
[snip]
> > > > They wanted an entry in the integrated desktop software
> > > > market. Works frankly was always a lousy one though.
> > >
> > > In your very biased opinion. It worked very well for me.
> >
> > Er.. let me get this straight.
> >
> > You are accusing me of an *anti-Microsoft* bias.
> >
> > Is that right?
>
> See? You cant think straight. Dolt, you are obviously biased agains m$
> work$ in the above statement.
I'm just astonished to be bashing a MS product
that you defend, that's all.
It's a new experience for me. :D
[snip]
> > > Clarisworks didnt do much Appleworks didnt do, except Clarisworks
worked
> > > in a GUI.
> >
> > You really should try ClarisWorks sometime; it did
> > a lot of stuff AppleWords didn't do. It did graphics moderately
> > well and had really groundbreaking intermodule integration.
>
> You really should quit puttin your foot in your mouth. I HAVE used
> Clarisworks. As I said above, it didnt really do much more than
> Appleworks, except in a GUI environment. You just said the same thing.
> You really are ignorant of Appleworks, arent you?
Appleworks had three modules, a word processor
that was decent, a spreadsheet that was rather
primitive and a database that was primitive to
the point of useless (a sore point for many
integrated packages, actually.)
No graphics. That's an entire category
of functionality that ClarisWorks had
and AppleWorks had not.
> > It was doing OLE 2.0-type stuff years before OLE
> > existed.
>
> Clarisworks MAY have been able ot actively update spreadsheets and
> reports embeeded in other docs, but I dont rmember it.
I suspect you mean something funny by "reports". ClarisWorks
couldn't generate reports, either.
But it could embed life spreadsheets or images in other
documents. At the time, this was radical.
It was very innovative. It really made Works look
primitive. AppleWorks too.
> > It was hot stuff.
>
> So was Appleworks, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
AppleWorks was not really all that innovative;
it was a good implementation, that's all.
I don't mean to suggest it was a bad product;
it was probably the best that could have been
managed on such hardware.
[snip]
> > I suspect that your idea of "a great deal of integration" is
> > essentially "what AppleWorks did"; that's setting the bar
> > pretty low.
>
> How would you know? You never used it. I did. I also have used
> Clarisworks on Mac and Intel - and Office.
I've used all those products, too, you know.
(Well, never ClarisWorks on Intel. But I understand
it is about the same there as on the Mac.)
[snip]
> > > I had an Apple IIe BEFORE the GS. I did MORE on the IIe with
Appleworks
> > > than I did with the GS. In fact, for along while, I just used the GS
as
> > > a souped up IIe. wait.. let me guess, you are now going to make some
> > > disparaging remarks having no basis in reality...
> >
> > No. I'm just trying to fine some explaination for
> > your idolization of the Apple II series other
> > than "Rick is insane".
>
> The Apple II was a great machine. You fail to give it credit for the
> what it accomplished, actually what Wozniak accomplished, in its time.
> You snub Appleworks and at the same time you show an absolute ignorance
> of the program.
I don' think I have; I've explained some of the nasty
technical details of it to you. If you know how the
Apple II worked, you know by know that I
know it well.
It's the system I cut my teeth on as a kid.
I give Woz great credit for getting the cheapest
graphics system ever seen out the door- but
that doesn't make it the best, just the cheapest.
By 1981 the C64 was better at graphics *and*
cheaper, so I discount that one.
I give Woz great credit for designing fast
interleaved floppies. They were small,
but they were better than the alternatives
right up to the PCs own release.
But the Apple II had some serious
drawbacks. Not having lowercase
really put a crimp in it for some
applications- like word processing.
And Woz doesn't seem to have though
of the notion of operating system software;
until ProDOS came along the Apple II
never got closer to that than having
a copy of one of Microsoft's BASICs in it.
Using *that* for things like disc access
programatically was most entertaining.
> > "Rick is thinking of the IIgs" would seem
> > to work.
>
> I said Apple II. I never said Apple II gs until I mentioned what Apple
> II I own NOW.
I was just guessing. Sounds like you
haven't used the II+, the model current
in 1981.
[snip]
> > It could. It used segments too, but it's segments
> > were laid out end-to-end, not overlapping;
> > the same numbre of segments covered more
> > address space.
> >
> > Its clock speed was its real achilles heel.
>
> # mhz was pretty good for a II. IIRC people have gotten the IIgs up to
> 12ish mhz.
Yes, but the stock config gave you 2.8 Mhz, I believe
it was. That was a bit uynder the 4.77Mhz of the
PC in '81, and it had fewer registers to boot
(though not by much).
My the time the Apple IIgs was available,
faster PCs were becoming available. It was not
a good time to be slightly slower than the
original 5150.
Still, it was able to run a Mac-like GUI. That
was largely because of better memory handling.
It coulda been a contender. It was a bit too late
and had too little commitment from Apple.
Too bad. I always liked the IIgs.
[snip]
> > > The PC was unbeatable because it came from IBM
> >
> > That was good and bad; it meant some of the
> > stupider suits would trust them more than a
> > computer from a bunch of hippies, but it also
> > meant it was rather expensive compared to its
> > competitors.
>
> It legitimized the market.
Yes, but it cost a mint. Suits care about
*that* too.
But, the developers were writing for it,
so the problem for the suits was
affording the getting the machines
The answer turned out to be clones,
as you know.
[snip]
> > > Well, then, by your definition, your precious PC's are shit. They cant
> > > do what mainframes can do.
> >
> > Think so? I rather think they can.
>
> Impossible. It is painfully obvious you dont think.
:D
I mean, there reasons for using big iron
over PCs for some things, but I can't think
of anything for which the reason to do so
would be "the PC just can't do it".
> > What do you think mainframes can do that
> > PCs cannot?
>
> you are the self annointed computer expert. Tell us what differentiates
> a mainframe from a microcomputer... if you can.
You really want to know?
Mainframes are different because they
run older software, fundamentally. This
is good and bad: it's good because the
software is mature, it is reliable, it is
*trusted*.
And for some institutions, that is
simply critical. They won't trust
some Johnny-come-lately Unix
computer, no matter how fast, still
less Windows.
Everything else about them flows
from this basic fact.
Those mainframes aren't especially
faster than PCs in terms of processing
power. That's not what they need; they
were written very efficiently back in
the days when even the biggest computers
were slow by out standards.
What they *do* need is have very,
very impressive I/O systems. Fast,
reliable, and capacious.
You can get impressive I/O systems for PCs,
too, but you don't need them as much because
of the way the newer software works. Clustering
and that sort of thing. There are other ways
besides expensive I/O systems.
We may sneer at legacy systems, but for some
people, "legacy system" means "system that
you know works"; there's a market for that.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
