Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
- Original Message - From: "Derek D. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "gnhlug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 11:56 PM Subject: Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers) > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > At some point hitherto, Rich Cloutier hath spake thusly: > > > think the largest influence was by far had by the gaming industry. > > > > ...and I have to disagree to some extent with that. > > > > While the gaming industry has forced hardware manufacturers to push the > > limit on 3d rendering and animation speeds, which translate into fast GPUs, > > and hardware acceleration, it is the GUI environment (Windows) that has > > pushed for acres of screen real estate, ie., 1600x1280 desktops, multiple > > monitors, and so forth. > > I still have to disagree with this. It was the gaming industry that > pushed the early PC graphics adaptors from CGA to EGA and then to VGA, > with the desire for ever sharper and more colorful game details. In the beginning, that may be true. However, Windows, for those who don't remember, was initially just a GUI front end to a Desktop Publishing program called Pagemaker, which was not even developed by Microsoft. Game developers, at that time, were torn between whether to use raster graphics or vector graphics. It was Microsoft's desire to have a graphical OS like the Xerox PARC system and the Mac, that forced every PC manufacturer to put in higher and higher resolution video cards to support the colorful desktops. > It > was the gaming industry that created a demand for sound cards with > respectable digital sound effects and music synthesis at commodity > prices. It was the advent of first-person shooter games, like Castle > Wolfenstien in 1992 and Doom in 1993, that pushed those resolutions to > be fed faster, and then with other games to go further to 1024x768 for > still crisper graphics with the advent of such games as Quake I in > 1996. At that point, I believe the majority of non-gaming Windows > users were still using Windows at 640x480@256 colors or less... The majority of gaming AND non-gaming Windows users are still using 1024x768 @ 16 bpp color or less. Most gamers don't play beyond 1024x768 @ 16bpp. It is the power Windows users who have massive spreadsheets, full page documents and marketing brochures in full color, huge CAD files, and 3d rendering and animation (all converts from UNIX workstations) that demand 32 bpp color and insane resolutions like 3200x1200 on two or more monitors. > > At the time, I was working at UPS in field support, and we'd only just > started to switch people from our DOS-based shipping program to a > Windows one. I installed this product on shipping systems for a fair > number of our customers, and the systems almost always ran at > 640x480x256. Many businesses were still primarily using DOS-based > applications at that time, and were only just beginning to switch to > Windows. Graphics cards of the time which were able to do higher > resolutions were comparitively expensive. > > Even today, if you walk around the office where you work, I suspect > that you'll find a majority of users still use a desktop size of > 1024x768. This has been the case everywhere I've worked, period. > Some users actually still used 800x600, because of eye strain issues. Yes, I'll agree that eye strain is a limiting factor, mostly because corporations are too cheap to buy really GOOD monitors. Even a 17 inch MAG monitor will strain your eyes after an hour or two at 1024x768. Another reason is that most users simply DON'T KNOW HOW to increase the resolution or color depth over what the Windows default installation is (NEVER more than 1024x768 and more often 800x600.) Of course these users and their bosses are NOT the ones buying the GeForce and Matrox video cards or the 19" or 21" CRTs or the 16" digital flat panels. > > For the most part, high-res desktops are still to this day relegated > to Geeks Like Us (TM), or to those with specialized needs (i.e. CAD > designers, publishers, and similar). Were it not for the gaming > industry, decent sound hardware would probably still be substantially > more expensive, being relegated to musicians, sound effects people, > and other similar special needs groups. Here you are correct. Sound cards were developed for, and are used mostly by, gamers. Musicians use specialized sound hardware to reproduce the music; they only use the PC to compose and edit the material. When it comes time for reproduction, it gets fed into very high-end, specialized reproduction equipment. It doesn't come out the sound card. > > > And it is the fact that we do not really have a true Real Time Operating > > System that has caused massive increases in CPU horsepower, disk speeds, and > > gobs of RAM in order to play back audio and video files without skipping, > > making it SEEM like we have real time capabilities, when in fact we do not. > > Use DOS. It migh
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Rich Cloutier hath spake thusly: > > think the largest influence was by far had by the gaming industry. > > ...and I have to disagree to some extent with that. > > While the gaming industry has forced hardware manufacturers to push the > limit on 3d rendering and animation speeds, which translate into fast GPUs, > and hardware acceleration, it is the GUI environment (Windows) that has > pushed for acres of screen real estate, ie., 1600x1280 desktops, multiple > monitors, and so forth. I still have to disagree with this. It was the gaming industry that pushed the early PC graphics adaptors from CGA to EGA and then to VGA, with the desire for ever sharper and more colorful game details. It was the gaming industry that created a demand for sound cards with respectable digital sound effects and music synthesis at commodity prices. It was the advent of first-person shooter games, like Castle Wolfenstien in 1992 and Doom in 1993, that pushed those resolutions to be fed faster, and then with other games to go further to 1024x768 for still crisper graphics with the advent of such games as Quake I in 1996. At that point, I believe the majority of non-gaming Windows users were still using Windows at 640x480@256 colors or less... At the time, I was working at UPS in field support, and we'd only just started to switch people from our DOS-based shipping program to a Windows one. I installed this product on shipping systems for a fair number of our customers, and the systems almost always ran at 640x480x256. Many businesses were still primarily using DOS-based applications at that time, and were only just beginning to switch to Windows. Graphics cards of the time which were able to do higher resolutions were comparitively expensive. Even today, if you walk around the office where you work, I suspect that you'll find a majority of users still use a desktop size of 1024x768. This has been the case everywhere I've worked, period. Some users actually still used 800x600, because of eye strain issues. For the most part, high-res desktops are still to this day relegated to Geeks Like Us (TM), or to those with specialized needs (i.e. CAD designers, publishers, and similar). Were it not for the gaming industry, decent sound hardware would probably still be substantially more expensive, being relegated to musicians, sound effects people, and other similar special needs groups. > And it is the fact that we do not really have a true Real Time Operating > System that has caused massive increases in CPU horsepower, disk speeds, and > gobs of RAM in order to play back audio and video files without skipping, > making it SEEM like we have real time capabilities, when in fact we do not. Use DOS. It might not be a truly real time OS; but since it doesn't multitask, close enough. The reason CPU power has increased so quickly is again, because of the gaming industry. If this were not true, why did processors on other platforms (Unix systems, for example) which do not typically play games grow so slowly by comparison? Only fairly recently, after realizing that PCs had gotten so powerful as to be able to outperform their expensive hardware have Unix vendors' CPUs started to catch up to PC CPUs. It's all about the games baby! =8^) - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9WIN3djdlQoHP510RApn5AKCE25xcj7fEldkr+HDWmr+k/VFjvACgsaqs Sq5iZAPKQDSb1FF28LDWiiM= =C1Zn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
My 1st computer (was: 'My favorite platform')
Heh. I grew up near Dartmouth College & they gave out accounts to local high school students on their Honeywell running DTSS (Dartmouth Time Sharing System). Birthplace of BASIC. Named pipes. And I think runoff. Did you know the 1st remote terminal was from Dartmouth to Bell Labs in the late 40s? Anyways, I had a TI Silent 700 terminal & could dial in from home - at 300 baud. Thermal paper for it was hard to find (Fax machines were uncommon in 1980). I used to spend about an hour a night in the xyz conference with college students across the east coast. They were like today's IRC and instant messaging chat rooms. I also taught myself BASIC on it. I later got an Apple ][+ with 64k and 2 floppies. Great for games, word processing, programming. Applesoft BASIC was different from Dartmouth BASIC. I missed the chatting I had on the terminal (which I still used). I didn't have a modem for the Apple ][. Apple Pascal was interesting. It had a built in bugger. If your code had no bugs in it, the p-compiler would helpfully add some. So just recompiling would sometimes get rid of a bug :-( My intro to Unix came in college when my roommate showed me rn on a gould. There was a time when you could read every post on usenet :-) Ed Lawson said: >On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:15:57 -0400 (EDT) >My first computer came with 8 Kilobytes as standard and I bought it with a mon >nster >memory board which brought it up to 24 kilobytes. Also had a single 5.25 flop >py which >provided all of 80 kilobytes of disk storage. OSI MF4P > >Then the IBM PC came out. I remember booting my first PC and looking with awe > at 640K memory showing during the boot sequence. > >Ed Lawson >___ >gnhlug-discuss mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > -- --- Tom Buskey ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Maddog on NHPR
Excellent interview! One of the better expositions of "free" software I've heard... -Alex P.S. I particularly liked Maddog's using the dictionary definitions of "free = no cost" and "free = freedom". - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dawson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 8:06 PM Subject: Maddog on NHPR > In case you missed it, maddog was on the Front Porch on NHPR. You can > listen to it at: > > http://www.nhpr.org/content/summary_view.php/1/ > > (Yes, they have RealPlayer as well as MSPlayer). > > Excellent interview maddog - whereditgo! > > --Bruce > > > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: MELBA meeting 28 August 2002
I don't know about anyone else, but I think an install fest would be great, especially for anyone in our group who has never installed Linux, or may have issues with an install of their own. Just my .05. Jeff At 03:25 PM 8/12/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Hey all, > >I don't seem to have topic lined up for the Aug. meeting. Anyone >interested in presenting something? Or, would anyone like to do a >mini-install fest? > > >-- > >Seeya, >Paul >-- > It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, >but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. > > If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! > > >___ >gnhlug-discuss mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:15:57 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To put this in > perspective, at the time the IBM-PC was introduced, 64 kilobytes was seen as > a fairly good sized main memory for a home microcomputer. My first computer came with 8 Kilobytes as standard and I bought it with a monnster memory board which brought it up to 24 kilobytes. Also had a single 5.25 floppy which provided all of 80 kilobytes of disk storage. OSI MF4P Then the IBM PC came out. I remember booting my first PC and looking with awe at 640K memory showing during the boot sequence. Ed Lawson ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 7:16pm, Ken Ambrose wrote: >> In Redmond's favor, any GUI is going to be somewhat of a memory hog. > > My first Amiga, the A-1000, a truly GUI/multitasking box, came stock with > 256K RAM, and ran fine. Oh, yeah, that reminds me: PC/GEOS, the core of GeoWorks Ensemble. A multitasking, multi-threaded, GUI, single imaging model, pervasively object-oriented operating environment, running well in 640 KB on an 8 MHz 8088 processor. It took up less than 10 MB on my hard disk (good thing, too, since it was only a 20 MB disk). I even hacked it down to the point where it would run off a single 1.44 MB floppy. It was slower than hell, and didn't do very much, but it ran. The Amiga had a much better hardware design than the PC, of course. I would expect it to do better. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Jerry Feldman wrote: > In Redmond's favor, any GUI is going to be somewhat of a memory hog. My first Amiga, the A-1000, a truly GUI/multitasking box, came stock with 256K RAM, and ran fine. I got the add'l 256K so I could have a RAM disk. ;-) In other words, a GUI doesn't necessarily require memory hoggishness, though it certainly does seem par for the course. As for IBM and the 68K -- one of the initial PC specs was backward CP/M compatibility. The 8088 seemed a logical choice to fulfill this unfulfilled "feature:" everything the 8080 was, and faster, to boot. While I imagine that there were probably a few CP/M emulators for 68K boxen, they a) probably didn't work that well, and b) the 68K itself, in '81, probably cost a small fortune. -Ken ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Greater NH Linux User Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 9:57 PM Subject: Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers) > > "Why, back in my day, we didn't even have keyboards. We had to chisel the > characters into the screen! And we liked it!" > You had a SCREEN??? We had teletypes and console switches (PDP-8) :oP Rich Cloutier SYSTEM SUPPORT SERVICES President, C*O www.sysupport.com ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
- Original Message - From: "Derek D. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "GNHLUG mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 8:40 PM Subject: Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers) > I have to disagree. While I think they may have had an influence, I > think the largest influence was by far had by the gaming industry. > They're the ones pushing the graphics accelerators into the gagillions > of pixels per nanosecond range... and the average home/business user > STILL has no need of anything more powerful than a Pentium 200MHz > running Windows 95. Except for games. > ...and I have to disagree to some extent with that. While the gaming industry has forced hardware manufacturers to push the limit on 3d rendering and animation speeds, which translate into fast GPUs, and hardware acceleration, it is the GUI environment (Windows) that has pushed for acres of screen real estate, ie., 1600x1280 desktops, multiple monitors, and so forth. And it is the fact that we do not really have a true Real Time Operating System that has caused massive increases in CPU horsepower, disk speeds, and gobs of RAM in order to play back audio and video files without skipping, making it SEEM like we have real time capabilities, when in fact we do not. Rich Cloutier SYSTEM SUPPORT SERVICES President, C*O www.sysupport.com ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 9:52pm, Erik Price wrote: > I remember my first Macintosh. It did not come with a hard disk! Just a > floppy drive. "Why, back in my day, we didn't even have keyboards. We had to chisel the characters into the screen! And we liked it!" ;-) -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
On Monday, August 12, 2002, at 09:16 PM, Tom Buskey wrote: > There was also the m68000 (unless you meant the 68000 when you wrote > 6800 above). The Macintoshes started on them (with 128k of RAM!). Sun, I remember my first Macintosh. It did not come with a hard disk! Just a floppy drive. Erik -- Erik Price email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 9:09pm, Tom Buskey wrote: >>> My Sparc 20 had a memory error for a month because I was too lazy to shut >>> it down & reseat the simm. Can PCs do error correction like that? >> >> Sure, with ECC RAM. :) > > Which is in (just about?) every Sun system. It's harder to find in a PC. It was a question of market and cost: Sun hardware was targeted at fairly high-end uses, where pretty much anyone would want ECC RAM. When the whole system costs $10,000, spending $500 more on ECC RAM only makes sense. When the whole system costs $1500, spending $500 more on ECC RAM is a harder decision to make. Today, though, ECC is fast becoming the standard in PCs. Memories are so large that (1) it is silly not to and (2) you pretty much need to. More memory makes the chances of errors statistically more likely. > I've seen "Real Weasel" (sp?) for PCs. It looked pretty cool. It was > also expensive. Yah, the PC Weasel and descendants were designed to retrofit serial console support onto systems that did not have it but really needed it. Most of the time, you just buy a motherboard with onboard serial support. > I'm not sure, but I think NetBSD can do serial console (& install?) on a > PC. I think you still don't get the BIOS stuff. I know LILO, GRUB, and Linux all support serial console. > Another advantage of Sun is no interrupts. I think Macs have this too. Er, um, pretty much every general purpose computer I know of has interrupts. I know the Mac sure does. If you mean "manual configuration of interrupts", those went away with the ISA bus. (People who persist in using the ISA bus deserve what they get.) How else will hardware signal the processor it needs attention? -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
One interesting development on the programming side is the popularity of interpreters. Interpreters usually have about a 1:10 performance relationship to pure in-line code. Their advantage is code density. You can cram an incredible amount of functioanlity into an interpreted object whereas inline code takes up a fair amount of memory space. Of course 'tricks' are played to improve the performance of interpreted code such as 'Just in time' optimization but still, if you've used a large Java program, and most of the Java IDEs are built almost entirely in Java, you notice quite a performance degradation unless you have a) lot's of RAM and b) a fairly powerful CPU with the latter being less important. -Alex - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Greater NH Linux User Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 9:15 PM Subject: RE: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers) > On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 8:36pm, Brenda A. Bell wrote: > >> The 640 KB limit arose from the original IBM-PC design, circa 1980. > >> Since the 8086 didn't even have a memory manager, hardware needed to be > >> mapped directly into physical memory space, and IBM thought 640/384 was a > >> good place to draw the line between software and "reserved" memory. > > > > Somewhere on the Internet there's an anthology of hilarious quotes... I > > believe it was someone from IBM who said "why would anyone ever need > > more than 640K RAM in a personal computer". > > "640K should be enough for anybody" is widely attributed to Bill Gates. > Since Bill actually had nothing to do with the 640/384 boundary, I suspect > the remark is either (1) apocryphal (2) made off-hand. To put this in > perspective, at the time the IBM-PC was introduced, 64 kilobytes was seen as > a fairly good sized main memory for a home microcomputer. Ten times that > might well inspire a "should be enough" remark. > > > As much as I hate to give them credit for anything, I believe Redmond is > > greatly responsible for the kind of PC hardware we have today... Windows > > 3.1 was a hog, but people wanted it and the hardware vendors did what they > > needed to to keep up. > > I think it is more correctly described as a positive feedback loop. > Bigger software demands beefier hardware; more powerful hardware means > software can grow larger. The process reinforces itself. > > -- > Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | > | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | > | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
Jerry Feldman said: >When the PC was designed, there was a rather small market. You had the >Apple II with 16K, and a few other 8080, z80, m6800, or 6502. The PC used >the 8088 (which is the 8 bit version of the newer 8086 line. Coming from 8 >bits to 16 bits was a big move. There was also the m68000 (unless you meant the 68000 when you wrote 6800 above). The Macintoshes started on them (with 128k of RAM!). Sun, Apollo, HP, and others based thier workstations on them. There's some rumors that IBM considered it for the PC but rejected it because Motorola was the only source. . \ -- --- Tom Buskey ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
RE: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
> > As much as I hate to give them credit for anything, I believe > > Redmond is greatly responsible for the kind of PC hardware we have > > today... Windows 3.1 was a hog, but people wanted it and the > > hardware vendors did what they needed to to keep up. > > I have to disagree. While I think they may have had an influence, I > think the largest influence was by far had by the gaming industry. > They're the ones pushing the graphics accelerators into the gagillions > of pixels per nanosecond range... and the average home/business user > STILL has no need of anything more powerful than a Pentium 200MHz > running Windows 95. Except for games. Since the introduction of Win95, absolutely... I was more thinking about the early 90's when Windows 2 and 3.1 demanded more from the hardware and everytime it got more, it was never enough... then comes NT which requires even more because its intended use is a business environment... none of these were really targetted for gaming platforms, but I believe their quickly increasing resource requirements paved the way. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 9:09pm, Jerry Feldman wrote: > You're probably correct. I don't see any benefit for a normal home user to > get a 1.5Ghz Pentium 4 for $700. Heh. You've never tried Windows XP then. ;-) -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > Just adding a bit more fuel to the fire... ;-) > How rare on the GNHLUG :-) I think this a useful thread of course. > >On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, at 8:39pm, Tom Buskey wrote: >> One advantage Sun (& Apple) have always had over PCs is quality. They >> are well built. > > With the IBM-PC platform comes choice. That includes bad choices. There >are a great many OEMs out there selling all manner of crap products. Some >of it is so badly designed or manufactured it actually causes harm to person >and/or property. However, there can also be found fair, good, and excellent >quality products. With single-source solutions (like Sun and Apple), you >always know what the vendor is giving you, since you only deal with one >vendor. Of course, if you happen to *dislike* what the vendor is giving >you, you are screwed. I might add that a similar situation exists in the >software world today Absolutely. Certain combos don't work well either. For instance, Windows NT/2000 runs very poorly on VA Linux boxes. Or it did on the ones we had ordered at work for our lone NT guy (of a group of 20 unix bigots^H^H^H^H^H^Hguys). I'm just pointing out good brands :-) > >> My Sparc 20 had a memory error for a month because I was too lazy to shut >> it down & reseat the simm. Can PCs do error correction like that? > > Sure, with ECC RAM. :) Which is in (just about?) every Sun system. It's harder to find in a PC. Early Macintoshes didn't have parity ram, let alone ECC. >> you can install with a serial terminal > > Assuming you have hardware with serial console support, and an OS that can >handle it, this is quite possible on IBM-PCs as well. I've seen "Real Weasel" (sp?) for PCs. It looked pretty cool. It was also expensive. I'm not sure, but I think NetBSD can do serial console (& install?) on a PC. I think you still don't get the BIOS stuff. Another advantage of Sun is no interupts. I think Macs have this too. There's advantages to different platforms. PCs have the latest & greatest releases because that's what everyone develops on & uses. I remember when, in the Unix world, SunOS was the most common. Everything else was ported from the SunOS version. PCs usually give the best cpu/$$ for integer performance too. Do they do it in floating point nowadays too? btw - my desktop system, where I ssh to my servers, browse, read email, etc. is a laptop running Linux fwiw. I like to have all the toys installed. -- --- Tom Buskey ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii You're probably correct. I don't see any benefit for a normal home user to get a 1.5Ghz Pentium 4 for $700. Games certainly do drive the system. But, people tend to load up with applications and leave them hanging around all the time (but most of that resides in swap space). "Derek D. Martin" wrote: > I have to disagree. While I think they may have had an influence, I > think the largest influence was by far had by the gaming industry. > They're the ones pushing the graphics accelerators into the gagillions > of pixels per nanosecond range... and the average home/business user > STILL has no need of anything more powerful than a Pentium 200MHz > running Windows 95. Except for games. - -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 12/25/2001 iD8DBQE9WFwz+wA+1cUGHqkRAlu5AJ4gT+yh1+VyhmaQWpjlwQlMf61LIACggpL+ dBcVPS+/kWotBFGnhZiKwiE= =k+3p -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
RE: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 8:36pm, Brenda A. Bell wrote: >> The 640 KB limit arose from the original IBM-PC design, circa 1980. >> Since the 8086 didn't even have a memory manager, hardware needed to be >> mapped directly into physical memory space, and IBM thought 640/384 was a >> good place to draw the line between software and "reserved" memory. > > Somewhere on the Internet there's an anthology of hilarious quotes... I > believe it was someone from IBM who said "why would anyone ever need > more than 640K RAM in a personal computer". "640K should be enough for anybody" is widely attributed to Bill Gates. Since Bill actually had nothing to do with the 640/384 boundary, I suspect the remark is either (1) apocryphal (2) made off-hand. To put this in perspective, at the time the IBM-PC was introduced, 64 kilobytes was seen as a fairly good sized main memory for a home microcomputer. Ten times that might well inspire a "should be enough" remark. > As much as I hate to give them credit for anything, I believe Redmond is > greatly responsible for the kind of PC hardware we have today... Windows > 3.1 was a hog, but people wanted it and the hardware vendors did what they > needed to to keep up. I think it is more correctly described as a positive feedback loop. Bigger software demands beefier hardware; more powerful hardware means software can grow larger. The process reinforces itself. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
Much goes back to the design of the 8088 chip and its implementation in the original PC. The larger onboard memory really required the 386 chip (although the 286 changed some stuff). The other limitation was DOS, which operated in realmode. Essentially, Windows 95 started the ball rolling on that. In Redmond's favor, any GUI is going to be somewhat of a memory hog. My programming background is on the old IBM mainframe's with 32K or on 4K PDP-8s. When memory is constrained, the programmer uses many memory saving tricks including using the subroutine return slots (on the 8) as temporary data stores or using an instruction as a mask. When the PC was designed, there was a rather small market. You had the Apple II with 16K, and a few other 8080, z80, m6800, or 6502. The PC used the 8088 (which is the 8 bit version of the newer 8086 line. Coming from 8 bits to 16 bits was a big move. "Brenda A. Bell" wrote: > Somewhere on the Internet there's an anthology of hilarious quotes... I > believe it was someone from IBM who said "why would anyone ever need > more than 640K RAM in a personal computer". I don't think anyone knew > what was going to happen in this space. As much as I hate to give them > credit for anything, I believe Redmond is greatly responsible for the > kind of PC hardware we have today... Windows 3.1 was a hog, but people > wanted it and the hardware vendors did what they needed to to keep up. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Brenda A. Bell hath spake thusly: > Somewhere on the Internet there's an anthology of hilarious quotes... I > believe it was someone from IBM who said "why would anyone ever need > more than 640K RAM in a personal computer". Actually that was Bill Gates... Except that he denies it. > As much as I hate to give them credit for anything, I believe > Redmond is greatly responsible for the kind of PC hardware we have > today... Windows 3.1 was a hog, but people wanted it and the > hardware vendors did what they needed to to keep up. I have to disagree. While I think they may have had an influence, I think the largest influence was by far had by the gaming industry. They're the ones pushing the graphics accelerators into the gagillions of pixels per nanosecond range... and the average home/business user STILL has no need of anything more powerful than a Pentium 200MHz running Windows 95. Except for games. - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9WFWIdjdlQoHP510RArLgAJ9ezBOJekE5kOrrk05wwtHwROzeKQCfdjtL VTCz1VHtQ43DOpHXcRKH3rs= =xxag -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
[gnhlug-announce] Wednesday's CentraLUG meeting
CentraLUG has been experiencing spotty attendance lately, and so we've (both of us) decided to relieve Sybase of the burden of hosting us. So, for Wednesday's meeting, we (that is: all readers who are interested) will meet at Pizzeria Uno's in Concord at 7:30pm on the 14th. We'll discuss group management, meeting nights, and meeting topics, among many other things (I'm sure). Pizzeria Uno's is right off the Exit 14 of I-93. Oh. Its in New Hampshire! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: 'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
> The 640 KB limit arose from the original IBM-PC design, > circa 1980. > Since the 8086 didn't even have a memory manager, hardware > needed to be > mapped directly into physical memory space, and IBM thought > 640/384 was a > good place to draw the line between software and "reserved" memory. Somewhere on the Internet there's an anthology of hilarious quotes... I believe it was someone from IBM who said "why would anyone ever need more than 640K RAM in a personal computer". I don't think anyone knew what was going to happen in this space. As much as I hate to give them credit for anything, I believe Redmond is greatly responsible for the kind of PC hardware we have today... Windows 3.1 was a hog, but people wanted it and the hardware vendors did what they needed to to keep up. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Maddog on NHPR
In case you missed it, maddog was on the Front Porch on NHPR. You can listen to it at: http://www.nhpr.org/content/summary_view.php/1/ (Yes, they have RealPlayer as well as MSPlayer). Excellent interview maddog - whereditgo! --Bruce ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
'My favorite platform' debate (was: Rack Mount Servers)
Just adding a bit more fuel to the fire... ;-) On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, at 1:57pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm just tired of the limits of the x86 line640k,8gb.why don't > manf take into account that just because a 10Tb drive dosen't exist today, > one will exist with 6 or 8 months...and plan.no, that's too simple The 640 KB limit arose from the original IBM-PC design, circa 1980. Since the 8086 didn't even have a memory manager, hardware needed to be mapped directly into physical memory space, and IBM thought 640/384 was a good place to draw the line between software and "reserved" memory. The 8 GB limit arose from the original IBM hard disk BIOS interface, circa 1984. The original 10 megabyte hard disk drive seemed like a huge amount of space at the time. 8000 megabytes was unimaginably huge. Both limits were eliminated, via backwards-compatible extensions, well before they were encountered. The only problem was some software (LILO, anything from Microsoft) was never updated to use the new interfaces. It is common enough to encounter similar limitations in products from the likes of Sun, SGI, HP, etc. Contrary to what they would like you to believe, they are not much better at looking ahead than anyone else. (There is some rather amusing commentary in the Linux kernel source, in regards to various flaws on various platforms. If you are bored some time, try grepping the kernel source for the seven dirty words you can't say on television. It can be quite entertaining.) On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, at 8:39pm, Tom Buskey wrote: > One advantage Sun (& Apple) have always had over PCs is quality. They > are well built. With the IBM-PC platform comes choice. That includes bad choices. There are a great many OEMs out there selling all manner of crap products. Some of it is so badly designed or manufactured it actually causes harm to person and/or property. However, there can also be found fair, good, and excellent quality products. With single-source solutions (like Sun and Apple), you always know what the vendor is giving you, since you only deal with one vendor. Of course, if you happen to *dislike* what the vendor is giving you, you are screwed. I might add that a similar situation exists in the software world today > My Sparc 20 had a memory error for a month because I was too lazy to shut > it down & reseat the simm. Can PCs do error correction like that? Sure, with ECC RAM. :) > you can install with a serial terminal Assuming you have hardware with serial console support, and an OS that can handle it, this is quite possible on IBM-PCs as well. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
tech tv
I know its short notice but tonight for those of you that have tech TV, The screensavers they will be interviewing maddog at 1900 hours Neal Richardson ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
MELBA meeting 28 August 2002
Hey all, I don't seem to have topic lined up for the Aug. meeting. Anyone interested in presenting something? Or, would anyone like to do a mini-install fest? -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Next meeting?
In a message dated: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:34:31 CDT "Svenson,Robert" said: >Hi Paul, > >I am interested in attending your next meeting to learn more about Linux! > >Your next meeting is scheduled for the 28th of August at Martha's Exchange, >but I didn't see a particular time, could you let me know when the meeting >gets started and if it is still planned for that date? Hi, and Welcome to GNHLUG, we're always happy to gain new members :) I'm more than willing to try and answer any questions you may have, or at least try and point you in the right direction. Anyway, most of the information you're probaly looking for/interested in regarding the GNHLUG and it's meetings can probably be found at our website: http://www.gnhlug.org. GNHLUG is set up as a state-wide organization with several sub-chapters. I'm the chairman of the Nashua chapter. Every chapter holds their own meetings each month, then once each quarter, we try to get all of GNHLUG together for a large quarterly meeting. For quarterly meetings in the past, we've had speakers such as Ted T'so (ext2, ext2 utils, pilot-link, etc), and just this past December, Eazel flew out from California for us to speak about their projects. Meetings for the Nashua chapter are held at Martha's Exchange, a micro-brew pub and restaurant located in Nashua on Main Street. The meetings are usually the 4th Wednesday of each month, and begin about 19:00ish or so. Many of us often show up for dinner around 18:00 or so in the pub before the meeting. If you're ever so inclined to show up for dinner, please RSVP to me so I can get an accurate count in order to make reservations. When you get there, walk in the front door and turn right toward the large brass Beer Brewing Kettles. At the end of the bar, turn left. We should be the large group at the back :) If you need directions to Martha's Exchange, they should be available on the web site. Currently we don't have any particular topic scheduled for the August meeting, so I'm open to suggestions :) There's really nothing more to getting involved other than either showing up to meetings or taking part in the general mailling list discussions. I highly recommend joining the mail list. There's a tremendous amount of knowledge on that list, and everyone really benefits from helping each other out. So, if you need help, it's a great place to get it. If you don't, it's a great place to lend a helping hand to others. You can get all the mail list info on our web site. There's ususally a Question/Answer session both before and after each meeting where we try to help people solve their problems, so if you have some pressing problem, this is usually a good place to meet up with someone who may have the answer. Additionally, we do have what we call New User Night's or N.U.N.'s. All the information to these events should also be on the web site as well. I encourage you join our mailing list and post any questions you have regarding running/installing Linux, or, for that matter, anything that technically oriented there, Please make sure though, to pose your questions in clear, well-thought out terms, explaining exactly what you're trying to do, and what is happening, including any error messages you are receiving. The more specific you are, the better we can help you. Again, welcome to GNHLUG! -- Seeya, Paul Paul Lussier Senior Systems and Network Engineer Co-Chairman, Greater New Hampshire Linux User's Group (GNHLUG) Chairman, Nashua Chapter GNHLUG http://www.gnhlug.org Events: http://md.appropriatesolutions.com/gnhlug/lug_cal/month.php ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 11:57am, Derek D. Martin wrote: > Good point. What's with Torx anyway? When Compaq started using Torx (back in the 1980s), *nobody* had seen Torx before. It was almost like putting a lock on the case. Unless you had a Special Compaq Screwdriver, you could not service the machine. They have actually *improved* quite a bit. They used to do things like use non-standard memory modules and non-standard connectors for everything they could. "Oh, it isn't a *Compaq* floppy disk drive? Then it won't fit." Same with software. Back in the days when MS-DOS 3.3 was hot stuff, it was almost routine to find software that worked everywhere else did not work on a Compaq. They also love incredibly complicated designs, when something much simpler (and therefore cheaper) would have done just as well. My favorite was a Compaq computer, in what *appeared to be* a standard tower configuration. But if you opened it up, you found the motherboard/backplane was split into *three* pieces, at 90-degree angles. There was absolutely no reason to not just use a single PCB and put everything on one side. | | |_ (looking at it from the front or back) | | | -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: > My beef with Compaq has always been that they are the king of gratuitous > incompatibility. If it says "Compaq" on it, everything from the motherboard > to the screws holding the case together will be completely unlike anything > else seen on this Earth. Good point. What's with Torx anyway? What's wrong with the three-thumbscrew design that a lot of vendors are using these days? Hmm... wouldn't want it to be too easy to service the hardware, I guess... > It tends to be overpriced, too, but they are hardly unique in that. :) True enough. Though as you point out, the Proliants are really solid and very well engineered. I'm usually willing to spend (my company's) money on that... - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9V9rQdjdlQoHP510RAuViAJ98QrKniEENfxooOFnbLtfGp/PmHACfQiyA S9tE99T2rF9P8oT8KMxcroY= =9YMu -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 11:00am, Derek D. Martin wrote: > And as much as I used to hate Compaq[1] hardware, I recently had the > opportunity to use the new Proliant rackmount servers, and I really liked > them a lot. Totally changed my opinion of Compaq's hardware. The Proliant line has some of the most solidly built hardware I've ever encountered. Reminds me of old-school DEC stuff -- thick steel, weighs a ton, you can drop it and the only danger would be cracking the floor. Same for the logic and disks. Top quality parts and well engineered. My beef with Compaq has always been that they are the king of gratuitous incompatibility. If it says "Compaq" on it, everything from the motherboard to the screws holding the case together will be completely unlike anything else seen on this Earth. It tends to be overpriced, too, but they are hardly unique in that. :) -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: OT: Mailing list members sued for disparaging comments
Sounds to me like someone is in it for the money. The typo in question was corrected and resent. I guess he should have chosen a name a little more distant in similarity that to have it one letter off from another company who's service is questionable. #jlk > http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquatic_plants/ > > An aquatic plant mailing list had a discussion about a vendor of aquatic > plants and now that vendor is sueing list members that gave their > (negative) opinion of that dealer. > > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: > Did Compaq have 1u or 2u rackmount server? They have both. The Proliant DL320 is an IDE-based 1u, and the DL360 is a SCSI-based 1u. The DL380 is a really sweet 2u that can hold 6 SCSI disks in its built-in RAID, as well as CD-ROM and floppy drive. > Not that I would've bought anything from Compaq, That's exactly how I felt until I used the stuff. Granted, I didn't get to use it for long, so I can't speak for its long-term reliability, but from what I saw I was very pleased. BTW Paul, please fix your Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] header. Thanks! - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9V87zdjdlQoHP510RAlwmAJ9xi3XhLOewkmTQnJnShpq5f0h82ACfa8Jp BcECR0jL+f2gbIxcoGk4ROw= =5lGy -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
In a message dated: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:03:13 EDT Ben Boulanger said: >What happened when the machine was powered off? Could you still talk to >the hardware and make it power itself back on? We ended up going with a >Western Telematics Network Power Switch - which work fine, assuming you >can get the bios on the box to 'always turn on after AC reset'. Just >wondering how you solved that problem. We had an APC power switch which you could telnet too and toggle power on any of the power ports. All the servers were set up to power on when the AC came back. Of course, this was all theorized to work, since we never actually got the power switch into production, and we folded before any one had a chance to play with it extensively. We also had a bunch of the WTI power switches laying around that could have been used (they were a central part of our cluster offerings :) The terminal server was in production and did work though. -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly: > On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 9:54am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm a big fan of HP's lpX000r series, but you'll pay for the HP name, and > > their quality engineering, and fantastic tech support, which is why I > > really like them :) > > Also, keep in mind that the word on the street says that HP will be > discontinuing their "own" i386 servers in favor of the former Compaq > Proliant line. And as much as I used to hate Compaq[1] hardware, I recently had the opportunity to use the new Proliant rackmount servers, and I really liked them a lot. Totally changed my opinion of Compaq's hardware. - -- [1] Alpha (and servers based on it) doesn't count -- AFAIC it's still a DEC product. - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9V81wdjdlQoHP510RApE3AJ9uIXh8LQr25r8DNCTQxey7NmJGdwCgnz8c WkaG8Qpog/ZQGtx5L1sycHk= =TGuN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > No, but at MCL all our servers were PCs running Linux, and we had > serial consoles on every one of them. We could easily reboot and get > the lilo prompt, boot single user, etc. Worked just fine. Oh, and > the terminal server even supported ssh :) What happened when the machine was powered off? Could you still talk to the hardware and make it power itself back on? We ended up going with a Western Telematics Network Power Switch - which work fine, assuming you can get the bios on the box to 'always turn on after AC reset'. Just wondering how you solved that problem. Ben -- When you have only two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
In a message dated: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:24:13 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 9:54am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I'm a big fan of HP's lpX000r series, but you'll pay for the HP name, and >> their quality engineering, and fantastic tech support, which is why I >> really like them :) > > Also, keep in mind that the word on the street says that HP will be >discontinuing their "own" i386 servers in favor of the former Compaq >Proliant line. Did Compaq have 1u or 2u rackmount server? Not that I would've bought anything from Compaq, I'm just curious. It'll be a shame if HP quality is sacrificed for Comcrap in the same spririt that they got rid of DEC's UltraHiNote laptops. Those things were great until Houston engineering got their hands on them :( -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
In a message dated: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:39:41 EDT "Tom Buskey" said: >Another advantage of sparcs: you can install with a serial terminal. No >graphics card, monitor or keyboard needed. Serial console servers in >the data center is much better then a KVM. Ever try to use a KVM in >your DC in San Diego, CA from Burlington, MA? No, but at MCL all our servers were PCs running Linux, and we had serial consoles on every one of them. We could easily reboot and get the lilo prompt, boot single user, etc. Worked just fine. Oh, and the terminal server even supported ssh :) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
In a message dated: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:57:31 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >We're in the same situation. We've decided to stop screwing around with >the x86 platform and move to Sun equipment. Machines built from the ground >up to be serversno suped up desktop parts here! > >Sure the cost is up there, but look at the bright side, the run Linux, and >in sales you can say something like - "While other ISP's use souped up >desktop parts to build servers, USAExpress.net uses only the bestSUN" :-) Well, if you really wanted to use the best, I don't agree that Sun is it. IMO, they're hardware, though at one time very good, has drastically gone down hill in the last few years. If you need serious 64bit computing, Alpha is still way ahead of UltraSparc. If you want rock solid manufacturing and engineering, then HP is, IMO, far better than Sun. With Sun, you're paying for name and marketshare, not quality. Kinda like Cisco and Microsoft. >I'm just tired of the limits of the x86 line640k,8gb.why don't manf >take into account that just because a 10Tb drive dosen't exist today, one >will exist with 6 or 8 months...and plan.no, that's too simple There are limitation to the x86 architecture, and I'll be the first to admit and agree that it's not that great, however, in the very recent past, a lot of things have come together to bring us the flexibility of those things we've always appreciated about the proprietary UNIX hardware vendors. With PXE, though not as good as an EEPROM, you can get the same end-results of over-the-net booting and installation. As far as bang/$, IMO, you can't go wrong with HP's x86-based rackmount servers running Linux. They're rock solid, and a lot cheaper than any Sun system. -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, at 9:54am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm a big fan of HP's lpX000r series, but you'll pay for the HP name, and > their quality engineering, and fantastic tech support, which is why I > really like them :) Also, keep in mind that the word on the street says that HP will be discontinuing their "own" i386 servers in favor of the former Compaq Proliant line. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
In a message dated: 10 Aug 2002 15:50:21 EDT Ed Robbins said: >Hi all, > >I'm about to help a local ISP update their NOC and I'm in need of some >rack mount servers. Anyone in the group have a preferred supplier >and/or comments/experience with particular brands/models... I'm a big fan of HP's lpX000r series, but you'll pay for the HP name, and their quality engineering, and fantastic tech support, which is why I really like them :) The lp1000r is a 1u rackmount server which is/can be a fully SCSI based system, will gladly run Linux, I've installed both RH and Debian on them. They take upto 3 hot swappable drives (80GBs last time I played with them, they may be upto 160s by now.) Dual CPU capable, blah, blah, blah. Angstrom Computing in Boston is another place I've heard a lot about. Their schtick is AMD based servers. I saw them at LWCE in February, and was pretty impressed with what I saw. Also local (Canton, MA?) is Network Engines who used to be the manufacturer of the VA Linux Systems 1u rackmount way back. I've recently been playing with their 1u systems: PIII 850Mhz 4 80Gb IDE drives 3 eepro100 NICs (PXE capable) There is *no* CD-Rom or floppy on these things which I find totally cool, since I can PXE boot them and install whatever I like on them. The systems I'm playing with I don't think are made any more, since both CPU and drive technology has drastically increased. I know we have systems in the lab with 160GB drives, and we're expecting 250GB drive systems real soon now. Hope that helps! -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
OT: Mailing list members sued for disparaging comments
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquatic_plants/ An aquatic plant mailing list had a discussion about a vendor of aquatic plants and now that vendor is sueing list members that gave their (negative) opinion of that dealer. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: OT: Equipment Repair
In a message dated: 10 Aug 2002 11:45:38 EDT "Kenneth E. Lussier" said: >Hi All, > >I know this is a bit off topic, but it's probably the best place to ask. >I have an (old) Infocus LCD projector that is broken, and I need to get >it repaired. Does anyone know of someplace local (I'm in Westford, MA) >that does this sort of work? Just asking the obvious here, but did you check out the InFocus web site and/or call them to ask ? -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Gnome root window...
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, "Bill" == Bill Mullen wrote: Bill> As Gnome appears to have no corresponding ability to Bill> repeatedly execute a program/script for this as KDE does, and Bill> completely ignores the attempts of xplanetbg to draw to the Bill> root window directly, I'm at a loss as to how to get some or Bill> all of this functionality going under Gnome. I'm not claiming that I know anything about Gnome or KDE, nor do I fully understand exactly what you're trying to do, but couldn't you use 'cron' to repeatedly exec your program for you? Is there a reason it must be a desktop/window manager built-in capability? -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Teaching assignments at Northeastern.
I meant to post this to the blu discuss list. Sorry for the bandwidth. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Teaching assignments at Northeastern.
There are 4 courses that do not have instructors allocated for the fall quarter. If you feel you are qualified, please respond to either Jack Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or Steve Maher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 15490 9/23-12/14 MKT 4305 Internet Marketing Boston Th 5:50-8:00PM 15923 9/23 - 12/14 MIS 4285 Javascript Burlington W 5:50 - 8:00 JH 19093 9/23 - 12/14 MIS 4319 LINUX for the Desktop Boston T 5:50 - 8:00 SM 17640 9/23 - 12/14 MIS 4445 Database Management Systems Dedham Th 8:05- 10:15 JH The Linux course falls under Steve's jurisdiction, the others are Jack's. I am already signed up for a course which conflicts with the Linux course, otherwise I would take it. I suspect that one of the requirements is probably that you have a college degree. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Associate Director Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Rack Mount Servers
I just installed Debian 3.0 on a sparc, it supports ext3 which journals. The install overall was much smoother than previous installs I had done with previous debian/sparc dists. I used a bootable CD which installed the base system, and from there everything else came in over the net. Tom Buskey wrote: > I've looked & installed Linux on the sun (both SuSE 7.3, Debian Potato > stable). I'm a bit frustrated with them. I really want a journaled file > system on my fileserver, but neither of these distributions offer it on > sparc. The BSD systems don't offer it out of the box either but their > releases are the same level as the Intel platform. Solaris 9 > does have journaling so I'm considering switching the Sparc 20. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
TESTING - please ignore
> "You'll pay to know what you really think." > -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
