Linux-Hardware Digest #654, Volume #14 Fri, 20 Apr 01 01:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: LS120 (Juergen Pfann)
Re: Sending voice to a modem (Grahame Kelly)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: linux and cray j90 (MindPatrol)
Re: Microsoft gets hard (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: A Linux emulator for Linux, does this exist? (Grant Edwards)
Re: Microsoft gets hard (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Franek)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: linux and cray j90 (Hartmann Schaffer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Juergen Pfann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LS120
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:27:52 +0200
Dances With Crows wrote:
>
> The main problem people have with LS-120s under Linux AFAICT is that
> it's difficult to low-level format a floppy disk, since fdformat looks
> for /dev/fd0 , which doesn't normally exist in a system with an LS-120
> since /dev/hdX is used for accessing either 1.4M floppies or LS-120
> disks.
>
Wouldn't it be easily possible to "cheat" to fdformat by a symbolic
link /dev/fd0 -> /dev/hdX ? And, BTW, which CHS parameters are
normally used for a LS 120 ?
Just curious, because I'm thinking of buying one soon - more out of
curiosity than of real needs, I admit...
Juergen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grahame Kelly)
Subject: Re: Sending voice to a modem
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:19:48 GMT
>> I need to write a program the will call a number and play a message.
Have a look for XCallerID (the original development) which is now
integrated into vgetty (mgetty) for pointers on how it is done.
Cheers, Grahame
--
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:35:39 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Lyttle
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:33:15 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Greg Cox wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I thought that a few years ago, the U.S.Navy tried a computer
> >> > controlled battleship, and the computers ran Windows NT (probably 3.51
> >> > in those days), and it crashed so bad the ship had to be towed into
> >> > port. (I may not have the facts exactly correct, but it was pretty
> >> > much like this.) Maybe the computers were not exactly your
> >> > bargain-basement PCs, but the software must have been. If the U.S.Navy
> >> > is dumb enough to use Microsoftware in a battle-critical system, why
> >> > would not some private industry be just as dumb?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> The version of the story I heard was that the first ship of a new class
> >> of Navy ship was out testing a new ship's control system programmed
> >> using a custom database running on NT4 and the DB software crashed, not
> >> NT. I believe the story goes that the captain said in his report that
> >> the DB software crashed a couple of times and was successfully restarted
> >> but the ship was towed in on the third crash with the system left in its
> >> crashed state for later analysis by the developers...
> >>
> >> --
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Essentially the version that was posted here. The DB crash, iirc, was
> >due to the cook entering too many items in a dinner menu. This crashed
> >the DB, the DB took down NT. It got restarted without anyone knowing why
> >it crashed, the cook did it again. When it crashed, it took out
> >propulsion. On the third try, the Captain decided to call for a tow
> >until the problem could be solved.
> >
> >One joke was that it should be intuitive that entering 4 entrees in the
> >dinner menu will shutdown the ships propulsion. The Navy fixed the
> >problem by making a new regulation prohibiting more than 3 entrees at a
> >meal.
>
> Oh man...what a way to solve a problem!
>
> I hadn't been aware that it was the cook putting in too many entrees
> that was causing the database to crash. Reminds me of the old song
> (poem?) about the lack of a horse's shoenail causing loss of a battle...
>
> OTOH, a database crashes when it will -- one hopes very infrequently,
> but how does one specify that a DB will crash when, say, a scratch page
> fills up and gets flushed out to a disk that's already full?
> One also hopes that next time the Navy designs a slightly more robust
> system that won't go down every time the DB server decides to powder
> its nose.
>
> (One would also think that the propulsion DB system and the cook's
> DB system were on different systems. Like the cooks' DB system is
> ultra-critical to ship's operation -- he could write things down on
> index cards or paper notebooks if he had to. Note quite as convenient
> of course, but certainly not life-threatening.)
A lot of military cooks aren't the brightest individuals.
In the army, those who aren't smart enough to be riflemen are sent
away to be a cook.
Mind you there smart cooks in the army...but they have to put up with
a disproportionate number of idiots.
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 1d:23h:40m actually running Linux.
> The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:40:04 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Lyttle
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:28:40 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >I see the same thing. But NT is not often used where it could, due
> >either a crash or lack of timeliness, do any damage to the work process.
> >I have seem it tried several times. One crash shut down a process line
> >permitting liquid nylon to harden in pipes and valves. 15 minutes off
> >line cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Another caused
> >disruption of a refinery operation. It took several days to get the
> >plant cleaned up and back on line.
>
> Dumb question, but .... whatever happened to the concept of redundancy?
Missing such obvious computer principles correlates highly with using
Windows in general.
> I'll admit it adds to expense (specifically, equipment and software
> licensing costs), but as far as I can tell, many web server farms using
> NT have just that: web server farms, with multiple machines; this makes
> the reliability quite adequate -- maybe even 99.999 % (5 minutes/year)... :-)
>
> Granted, this is a far cry from industrial control processes.
> (How long does it take for nylon to harden in a tube line, just out
> of curiosity? Are we talking hours, minutes, or seconds?)
>
> (ObLinuxPlug: Linux would work very well here :-) )
>
> >
> >I build SCADA system also. Several US cities are running systems I
> >designed. But if the operator displays fail, the A-B PLCs and
> >specialized computers will still run everything OK. The operator, just
> >has to run around to check local controls like he did before the
> >computers were installed.
>
> Can't comment unless SCADA systems are things like those used in
> metropolitan traffic projects with gigantic status screens showing
> where every traffic light, streetcar, or train is.
>
> [rest snipped]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 1d:22h:34m actually running Linux.
> We are all naked underneath our clothes.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MindPatrol)
Subject: Re: linux and cray j90
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:55:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:31:31 +0200, Jagged
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>wasn't is crays (the guys) philosophy to put well known and well working
>hardware together? i mean stuff that has shown already that it is worth
>using it for stable computer systems? chances aren't low that i'm wrong
>with this... just a question...
>
>Jagged
Seymore Cray was a great genius computer designer who always
pushed the boundaries of technology. No, I'd say that
stability was not high on his list of priorities. The
computers he was designing at the end of his life were as
bleeding edge as it gets.
Cray (the company) has to be concerned with reliabilty and
maintainabilty, of course, but speed is what sells their
machines. Of course, the new Cray company is not the one
that Seymore founded.
Regards,
John
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:03:18 +1200
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <snype>
> > > I do things which truly astound and bill for it.
> >
> > Admin NT servers, the most astound things? my guess, getting them to
> > stay up for longer than one week whilst maintaining the same throughput.
> >
> > Answer the question sonny. Until you start admining s/900z, s/390, and
> > clusters of UNIX servers, I suggest that you should keep your trap shut.
> >
>
> Now that is funny - I love it when the best come back a unix-nut has is:
> until you've suffered as I've suffered and continue to suffer you are
> nothing. The fact you can do what I can do in 1/4 the time with 1/8th the
> effort means you _obviously_ must be an idiot and I am a genius for slaving
> away working on much bigger and more compliated proprietary hardware.
>
> as if run time had anything to do with throughput - silly...
Nope, I can just setup a server and mainframe and it just keeps on
work'in, where as the poor o'l NT admin is praying that the server wont
suddenly in the middle of the night crash because of a minor issue. I
can get things done 3 times faster in that I don't need to keep hanging
around making sure the darn thing doesn't crash. With UNIX, you setup,
test, they fuck off home in the knowledge that it will just keep on
work'in.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: A Linux emulator for Linux, does this exist?
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:08:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
>>>happen. According to folklore, you can pretty much replace an entire 390 one
>>>piece at a time without ever rebooting -- I imagine that's a bit exagerated.
>>
>> Yes, I believe you can. If everything in the system is hot-swappable, why
>> not?
>
>There's got to be a bus that connects everything.
Rudundant interconnects are possible. Don't know if the 390 has them.
>Even if you can swap out one-by-one all the hard drives, all the RAM, all
>the I/O stuff, individual processors, and so on, at some point there's going
>to be a piece that ties it all together, the bus if you will. Unless it's
>highly modular, you won't be able to swap out that part with the system
>running.
There probably are single points of failure in some inter-connect hardware.
>Also the power supply could be a problem, unless
>it has multiple redundant power supplies.
The power-supply is one of the simplest for which to provide redundancy. Far
easier than disks, memory or CPUs. A couple current steering diodes, and
Bob's your uncle.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... My pants just
at went on a wild rampage
visi.com through a Long Island
Bowling Alley!!
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:09:14 +1200
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "David Ehrens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:aFHC6.18762$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I don't care if Microsoft can prove they have 500,000,000 partners.
> > Their allegiances lie with companies in their size and weight class, not
> > small consulting or integration outfits.
> >
> > David Ehrens
>
> Interesting... so given that linux is associated with dirty haired hippies
> in their parents basements vs MS associated with the largest businesses in
> the world - I guess we can see where this is going... you dug your own hole
> bub...
Considering Linux has only been around for 9 years, it has made good
progress. Even if you were to stictly look at commerical UNIX's, such
as SUN and SGI, they don't need to swing from the rafters declaring how
many "partners" they have, as they already have a proven and trusted
track record with industry. That compared to Microsoft that is still,
after 10 years trying to prove that they are a good alternative to
UNIX. Datacentre has been released, however, most people I know still
want to stick with UNIX, because it has a proven track record that is 35
years old, which ranges from supercomputers, to mainframes to mid-range
servers. So please, before you look at the hype of Microsoft, look at
the industry as a whole, and who are the real innovators.
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: Franek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:10:41 GMT
Brent R wrote:
> Franek wrote:
> > er... I've done some work on the "factory floor" and I've used different operating
> > systems. First (I'll probably be crucified now) linux crashes just as well as NT,
> > especially with some of the crap that's out there (of course it doesn't show blue
>on
> > screen <g>, maybe that makes it preferable.) Second, NT is used an *awful* lot in
>the
> > factory environment, and again, it's not that bad, no Sir, not at all. Lastly,
>whatever
> > application you're running that *must* not abend, you won't run either on NT or
>linux, or
> > anything else of the kind. For critical real-time control none of these will do.
>QNX will
> > do, as will some specialized systems like DCSs or PLCs. General-purpose boxes
>normally run
> > user interfaces, data collection, recipe loading, this kind of things, not the RT
>control.
> > This stuff can be rebooted relatively harmlessly.
> >
> > The problems with NT have rather something to do with:
> > - cost of licensing and idiotic conditions with artificial limitations
> > - goddamned size of it (linux can be chopped up and configured *exactly* for that
>task you
> > need)
> > - related to the previous: a potentially higher cost of hardware--sometimes it's
> > important.
>
> Hmmm... if you read my other posts and you'll see that I am in no way a
> MS-basher... usually I'm bashing some of the Linux kooks in here...
That's good, and I didn't mean to flame actually, if it came through like that I
apologize. Let there be Peace <g>.
> I have never had Linux even come close to crashing.
That at least depends on the software you run on it. I see it crash every day, during
development of course, but still. I'd say they're about the same if you weigh in all
the
factors.
> CAPS key and watch the light actually go on and off without failure
> (something I could not do in in Windows98).
Ah well, who's talking about 98 <g>?
> I've had problems with NT, not nearly as bad as Windows 98
No sense to even compare. These are different OS'es.
> problems then Linux. I personally can't tell if it's due to bad
> administration or what... it also has to do with a misbehaving app
> locking up the system (and the three fingered salute doesn't bring up
> the NT process screen right away).
That can easily happen, true.
> NT is also a huge resource hog...
Very true. Linux shines in that respect. Otoh, if you load it up as NT, gui and all,
it'll
probably be just as bad or even worse. It's really difficult to compare as a general
case.
> I would suggest that the only reason why NT is making inroads is that
> company's are making apps for it...
Well, that is certainly true, but it's not all there's to it. You gotta admit honestly
that NT is a very rich development environment with great tools. As a workstation where
all its components can really be put to good use, it is very good. As a server, that
becomes more questionable, and in any configuration it's definitely not a good choice
for
an embedded box.
> and phasing out UNIX.
Unix is used an awful lot, I don't think it gets phased out. Again, maybe as a desktop
it
is, but in general it's very strong on the server side.
> I've never heard of QNX (please divulge).
It's a real-time unix. We, for example, make boards that are run under it. Very much
proprietary <g>.
> these companies use IBM mainframes?
They used a lot as well but in places like airline ticket reservation etc. Power,
redundancy, availability, etc., no Unix, much less Windows has got anywhere close to
what
these beasties can do.
> altogether and go with a WS or mainframe. Let's face it... PC's are fast
> but they're pieces of junk.
Why do you say that? Compared to what, mainframes <g>?
> with the punishment that would be dealt to it on a factory floor.
I'm not sure that's true, but perhaps you could point out to something specifically.
There
are many hardened boxes that behave fine on the factory floor, and not only there: IBM
makes this Netframe thing which is truly like a bulldoser. Did you mean some
architectural
attributes?
> used an IBM mainframe (ES/9000, VSE/ESA) for about 1.5 years now, and
> I've seen how much more robust they are and how much PC's suck.
Well, hello, how many of those do you have at home tell me <g>. You're comparing
different
things.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:26:35 -0400
Brent R wrote:
>
> Franek wrote:
> >
> > Charles Lyttle wrote:
> > > However there are a number of manufacturers who make PC equals for the
> > > factory floor. They are much lower cost than traditional factory
> > > hardware, especially HP or Sun systems. These systems cost lots more
> > > than CompUSA trash, but still are cost effective, *IF* they have a good
> > > OS loaded. Linux does have competitors in this market, QNX being one.
> > > But the cost of a single BSOD is high enough to keep Windows out.
> > er... I've done some work on the "factory floor" and I've used different operating
> > systems. First (I'll probably be crucified now) linux crashes just as well as NT,
> > especially with some of the crap that's out there (of course it doesn't show blue
>on
> > screen <g>, maybe that makes it preferable.) Second, NT is used an *awful* lot in
>the
> > factory environment, and again, it's not that bad, no Sir, not at all. Lastly,
>whatever
> > application you're running that *must* not abend, you won't run either on NT or
>linux, or
> > anything else of the kind. For critical real-time control none of these will do.
>QNX will
> > do, as will some specialized systems like DCSs or PLCs. General-purpose boxes
>normally run
> > user interfaces, data collection, recipe loading, this kind of things, not the RT
>control.
> > This stuff can be rebooted relatively harmlessly.
> >
> > The problems with NT have rather something to do with:
> > - cost of licensing and idiotic conditions with artificial limitations
> > - goddamned size of it (linux can be chopped up and configured *exactly* for that
>task you
> > need)
> > - related to the previous: a potentially higher cost of hardware--sometimes it's
> > important.
> >
> > > --
> > > Russ Lyttle
> > > "World Domination through Penguin Power"
> > > The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
> > > <http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
>
> Hmmm... if you read my other posts and you'll see that I am in no way a
> MS-basher... usually I'm bashing some of the Linux kooks in here... but
> I have never had Linux even come close to crashing. I love pressing the
> CAPS key and watch the light actually go on and off without failure
> (something I could not do in in Windows98). The problems I've had with
> Linux have all been related to X, the GUI locks up and I press
> CTL-ALT-BCKSPCE and take down the GUI. So needless to say the really
> important stuff in Linux I do on an alternate text-login.
No need to do that. your GUI apps will continue to run, and as soon
as your fire up your X-display server, you will see your GUI apps
displayed again, unmolested, still running, unperturbed.
>
> I've had problems with NT, not nearly as bad as Windows 98 but with more
> problems then Linux. I personally can't tell if it's due to bad
> administration or what... it also has to do with a misbehaving app
Personally, I've never heard of an NT machine that has good administration...
at least not good enough for it to perform admirably.
Have you seen the new Mafia$oft ad:
"These machines haven't been touched in days..."
As if that's some sort of accomplishment that wasn't already surpassed
in the 1960's.
> locking up the system (and the three fingered salute doesn't bring up
> the NT process screen right away). NT is also a huge resource hog...
> Linux is more compact with comparable (probably better) stability and
> endurance.
>
> I would suggest that the only reason why NT is making inroads is that
> company's are making apps for it... and phasing out UNIX. Look, NT is a
> proprietary system just like the commercial UNICES that these companies
> used beforehand (I'm assuming), but those products had competitors while
> MS has none.
>
> I've never heard of QNX (please divulge). I would wonder if some of
> these companies use IBM mainframes? I would probably bypass PC's
> altogether and go with a WS or mainframe. Let's face it... PC's are fast
> but they're pieces of junk. No one makes a PC that's designed to put up
> with the punishment that would be dealt to it on a factory floor. I've
> used an IBM mainframe (ES/9000, VSE/ESA) for about 1.5 years now, and
> I've seen how much more robust they are and how much PC's suck.
>
> --
> - Brent
>
> http://rotten168.home.att.net
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hartmann Schaffer)
Subject: Re: linux and cray j90
Date: 20 Apr 2001 00:29:47 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MindPatrol wrote:
> ...
>Seymore Cray was a great genius computer designer who always
>pushed the boundaries of technology. No, I'd say that
depends on which technologies you are thinking. at least when he was
working at control data, he didn't touch integrated circuits because they
had neither the speed nor the reliability he wanted
>stability was not high on his list of priorities. The
afaik it was
>computers he was designing at the end of his life were as
>bleeding edge as it gets.
>
>Cray (the company) has to be concerned with reliabilty and
>maintainabilty, of course, but speed is what sells their
>machines. Of course, the new Cray company is not the one
>that Seymore founded.
which one would that be? he (co)founded at least 3, probably 4
--
hs
================================================================
"The cheapest pride is national pride. I demonstrates the lack of
characteristics and achievements you can be proud of. The worst loser
can have national pride" - Schopenhauer
------------------------------
** 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.hardware.
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-Hardware Digest
******************************
