Linux-Advocacy Digest #491, Volume #25 Fri, 3 Mar 00 14:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT - Hmmm... (Joseph)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Evert Claesson)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Evert Claesson)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Arthur)
Re: Bill Gates just cant win (Bob Hauck)
Re: Giving up on NT (Chad Irby)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Eric Leblanc)
Re: Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Jon)
Re: Giving up on NT (josco)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 18:04:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
[snip]
> In the *N*X-world, coding "...dates as the number of seconds since
1970"
> is the norm rather than the exception, to say the least.
> And it's really quite common to store dates in that format in
databases
> etc., so IMHO it would be next to impossible to change the starting
> point.
Storing dates that way would kinda destroy my thesis (if I may be
so bold as to call it that). I'd assumed that most dates were
stored as ascii or, barring that, in binary using using their
own date routines with some other concept of genesis. Using
time_t doesn't seem terribly portable, somehow.
> It might be true that in 2038 most people don't care about what
happened
> before 2000-01-01, but the *transition* would be tough anyway.
I did some checking on HPUX-10.2. Turns out that their time(),
gmtime() and strftime() calls seem to work (I get bored quickly)
back till around 1920 before blowing up. So, I guess I was wrong
about that, too. It did seem as though they treated time_t as
signed... for what it's worth.
> Well, I really don't care that much, however - I believe 64+ bit
> machines will be the norm before 2038 (and I'll be eighty by then ;-)
Probably eligible for retirement in just 3 more years;-)
cs
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 22:15:22 -0500
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT - Hmmm...
LP wrote:
>
> Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Joseph, (why is it that only your messages don't get automatically quoted?
> > > :)
> >
> > He uses
> >
> > X-Newsreader: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; StarOffice/5.1; OS/2)
> >
> > and you use
> >
> > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
> >
> > I've noticed this before, for some reason OE has problems with posts
> > made with StarOffice. And before somebody (again) puts the blame on SO,
> > no other newsreader seems to have these problems.
>
> by the same token.. OE has no other problem with any other newsreader,
other than SO
Too bad MS is a monopoly and OE is a feature included with Operating Systems. After
all we have to recognize who's responsible - or maybe it is accountable. Isn't
Staroffice a competitor?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Evert Claesson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 18:38:05 GMT
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Mark S. Bilk wrote in message <89mgs9$qll$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various NG's,
>>>and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
>>>reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on people's
>>>servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
>>>pretty stable to me. Then, when I went to www.microsoft.com, the web
>>>site seemed extremely responsive. This is pretty impressive, because
>>>we all know what kind of traffic www.microsoft.com gets. I've heard
>>>that W2k may have borrowed parts of FreeBSD 3.2's TCP/IP stack.
>>>
>>>I can't really confirm this, though, unless anyone else wants to
>>>debate this. Of cours, MS probably didn't incorporate the code
>>>verbatim, just borrowed bits and pieces of it.
>>>
>>>W2k is scaring me. My manhood is being threatend, because I'm a unix
>>>guy. Being a guy, well all of us guys have this "my dick is bigger
>>>than yours" complex. My dick is pretty big, because I run unix.
>>>However, I'm afraid that it will shrink/go limp when we see that W2K
>>>is indeed a unix killer. Livocates have been writing this thing off,
>>>and that's what's extremely dangerous. It's a lot like a really good
>>>football team (in this case, Linux), who goes in against another team
>>>with the attitude "Sheee-it, we can kick those guys' asses, no
>>>problem." You know what happens next -- that's right, that team ends
>>>up being the kick-ee.
>>>
>>>Basically, because I agree with Stephen S. Edwards that I'm a loser
>>>because I run an OSS. The real reason I run an OSS (in my case, it's
>>>FreeBSD, but Linux is good as well), is because I'm a low-class idiot
>>>who can't afford a real OS like W2K. Hey, it's worth shelling out
>>>$149 for. For one thing, it was developed by real programmers, not
>>>snot-nosed high school punks who always yell shit out of car Windows.
>>>(Huh huh huh - hey Beavis, I said "Windows".)
>>>
>>>I also agree with Boris that I "stink" because I can't afford
>>>Windows. Oh, if I only could have a really classy job like Stephen
>>>Edwards so I could afford a real OS like W2K. Oh please, guys, have
>>>pity on me, for I cannot afford the OS of the gods that is W2k.
>>>
>>>Of course, with $149, I could buy a pretty nice old machine, such as
>>>an older SPARC or DEC to put {Free,Net}BSD or Linux on. Of course,
>>>that would be like a homeless man who uses a cardboard box for
>>>shelter. I'm just a poor, hungry fool, who stinks, because I can't
>>>afford Windows 2000.
>>>
>>>Windows 2000 is really cheap for what you get. Here's a list of the
>>>goodies:
>>>
>>>1.) excellent graphics. Also, X windows looks like shit, and the
>>>Windows GUI is much better looking. Also, you really only have to
>>>learn one widget set under Windows, compared to X, which has several
>>>thousand.
>>>
>>>2.) excellent tech support. Hey, MS is offering tech support +
>>>customer support. Those alone are worth, what, $100?
>>>
>>>3.) Supported HW. - Almost all HW vendors support Windows NT, 98, or
>>>any of its variants better than Linux or FreeBSD ever will. Where the
>>>hell are my Netscape RealVideo plugins under FreeBSD's version of
>>>Netscape? Also, since I'm a low-class scummy OSS user, I sit home,
>>>drink beer, fart, and watch pornos and football all day long. A lot
>>>of porno sites need VivoActive plugins, dammit, so I can't drink beer,
>>>eat pretzels, and watch pornos. So, it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
>>>Also, those streaming video java porno flicks work like shit under
>>>unix netscape. Both FreeBSD and Linux have this problem, because I've
>>>tried them both. Internet Explorer doesn't have this problem.
>>>Ironically, Windows 2000 users are classier, so they have no need to
>>>watch pornos on the computer while simultaneously watching football on
>>>the "idiot lantern".
>>>
>>>4.) More jobs. Look in the want ads, and tell me what kind of
>>>experience companies want. That's right - Windows
>>>administrators/programmers are in demand. When do you ever see a
>>>FreeBSD programmer administrator in there? Not in Pittsburgh you
>>>won't.
>>>
>>>5.) Windows users are very intelligent and high class. Check out
>>>Stephen S. Edwards - he's an excellent example of this. If you run
>>>Windows, you won't be poor, stinky, or low-class like me, but rather,
>>>an intelligent, classy stud like Edwards (who also probably has a big
>>>dick). I'm pretty much a white-trash piece of shit compared to
>>>someone like Edwards. In fact, all of us unix, FreeBSD, and Linux
>>>users are white trash piles of shit compared to Edwards. Oh, and we
>>>also have little dicks, and we always masturbate while we compile our
>>>kernels like Boris says. Also, we always, always stink, because
>>>that's what Boris says. Boris is the man -- he is very intelligent.
>>>
>>>
>>>- Donn
>>
>>CNN just reported that trucks filled with what appear to be
>>giant seed pods have been seen near Pittsburgh, PA and many
>>other American cities. They reportedly originate from
>>Redmond, Washington.
>>
>>Stop! Stop and listen to me! These people who're coming
>>for us are not human!
>>
>>Look, you fools. You're in danger. Can't you see?
>>They're after you. They're after all of us! Our wives,
>>our children, everyone!
>>
>>They're here already! You're next!!
>
>
>LOL.
>
>What was the name of that science fiction classic?
The Invasion of the Body Snatchers
>
>2 + 2
>
>PS, and they all look like Bill Gates talking about technology all the time
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Evert Claesson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 18:38:08 GMT
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Mark S. Bilk wrote in message <89mgs9$qll$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various NG's,
>>>and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
>>>reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on people's
>>>servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
>>>pretty stable to me. Then, when I went to www.microsoft.com, the web
>>>site seemed extremely responsive. This is pretty impressive, because
>>>we all know what kind of traffic www.microsoft.com gets. I've heard
>>>that W2k may have borrowed parts of FreeBSD 3.2's TCP/IP stack.
>>>
>>>I can't really confirm this, though, unless anyone else wants to
>>>debate this. Of cours, MS probably didn't incorporate the code
>>>verbatim, just borrowed bits and pieces of it.
>>>
>>>W2k is scaring me. My manhood is being threatend, because I'm a unix
>>>guy. Being a guy, well all of us guys have this "my dick is bigger
>>>than yours" complex. My dick is pretty big, because I run unix.
>>>However, I'm afraid that it will shrink/go limp when we see that W2K
>>>is indeed a unix killer. Livocates have been writing this thing off,
>>>and that's what's extremely dangerous. It's a lot like a really good
>>>football team (in this case, Linux), who goes in against another team
>>>with the attitude "Sheee-it, we can kick those guys' asses, no
>>>problem." You know what happens next -- that's right, that team ends
>>>up being the kick-ee.
>>>
>>>Basically, because I agree with Stephen S. Edwards that I'm a loser
>>>because I run an OSS. The real reason I run an OSS (in my case, it's
>>>FreeBSD, but Linux is good as well), is because I'm a low-class idiot
>>>who can't afford a real OS like W2K. Hey, it's worth shelling out
>>>$149 for. For one thing, it was developed by real programmers, not
>>>snot-nosed high school punks who always yell shit out of car Windows.
>>>(Huh huh huh - hey Beavis, I said "Windows".)
>>>
>>>I also agree with Boris that I "stink" because I can't afford
>>>Windows. Oh, if I only could have a really classy job like Stephen
>>>Edwards so I could afford a real OS like W2K. Oh please, guys, have
>>>pity on me, for I cannot afford the OS of the gods that is W2k.
>>>
>>>Of course, with $149, I could buy a pretty nice old machine, such as
>>>an older SPARC or DEC to put {Free,Net}BSD or Linux on. Of course,
>>>that would be like a homeless man who uses a cardboard box for
>>>shelter. I'm just a poor, hungry fool, who stinks, because I can't
>>>afford Windows 2000.
>>>
>>>Windows 2000 is really cheap for what you get. Here's a list of the
>>>goodies:
>>>
>>>1.) excellent graphics. Also, X windows looks like shit, and the
>>>Windows GUI is much better looking. Also, you really only have to
>>>learn one widget set under Windows, compared to X, which has several
>>>thousand.
>>>
>>>2.) excellent tech support. Hey, MS is offering tech support +
>>>customer support. Those alone are worth, what, $100?
>>>
>>>3.) Supported HW. - Almost all HW vendors support Windows NT, 98, or
>>>any of its variants better than Linux or FreeBSD ever will. Where the
>>>hell are my Netscape RealVideo plugins under FreeBSD's version of
>>>Netscape? Also, since I'm a low-class scummy OSS user, I sit home,
>>>drink beer, fart, and watch pornos and football all day long. A lot
>>>of porno sites need VivoActive plugins, dammit, so I can't drink beer,
>>>eat pretzels, and watch pornos. So, it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
>>>Also, those streaming video java porno flicks work like shit under
>>>unix netscape. Both FreeBSD and Linux have this problem, because I've
>>>tried them both. Internet Explorer doesn't have this problem.
>>>Ironically, Windows 2000 users are classier, so they have no need to
>>>watch pornos on the computer while simultaneously watching football on
>>>the "idiot lantern".
>>>
>>>4.) More jobs. Look in the want ads, and tell me what kind of
>>>experience companies want. That's right - Windows
>>>administrators/programmers are in demand. When do you ever see a
>>>FreeBSD programmer administrator in there? Not in Pittsburgh you
>>>won't.
>>>
>>>5.) Windows users are very intelligent and high class. Check out
>>>Stephen S. Edwards - he's an excellent example of this. If you run
>>>Windows, you won't be poor, stinky, or low-class like me, but rather,
>>>an intelligent, classy stud like Edwards (who also probably has a big
>>>dick). I'm pretty much a white-trash piece of shit compared to
>>>someone like Edwards. In fact, all of us unix, FreeBSD, and Linux
>>>users are white trash piles of shit compared to Edwards. Oh, and we
>>>also have little dicks, and we always masturbate while we compile our
>>>kernels like Boris says. Also, we always, always stink, because
>>>that's what Boris says. Boris is the man -- he is very intelligent.
>>>
>>>
>>>- Donn
>>
>>CNN just reported that trucks filled with what appear to be
>>giant seed pods have been seen near Pittsburgh, PA and many
>>other American cities. They reportedly originate from
>>Redmond, Washington.
>>
>>Stop! Stop and listen to me! These people who're coming
>>for us are not human!
>>
>>Look, you fools. You're in danger. Can't you see?
>>They're after you. They're after all of us! Our wives,
>>our children, everyone!
>>
>>They're here already! You're next!!
>
>
>LOL.
>
>What was the name of that science fiction classic?
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
>
>2 + 2
>
>PS, and they all look like Bill Gates talking about technology all the time
>
>
------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:13:00 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eric Remy wrote:
> In article <89nr09$aqi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
> wrote:
> >> Ah, amazing! A driver takes down an OS. And remind me
> >> which (non-mainframe) OS won't go down by installing
> >> a buggy driver?
> >Ahh..so now its non-mainframe.
> >Inferno (Purgatory) springs immediately to mind.
> I'm confused here. Let's take a pathological case. I write a disk
> device driver for Inferno, or any other OS. I put in a major bug: every
> time a command is received from the OS, there's a 1/10 chance that the
> driver will tell the disk to do a low-level format of the entire drive.
> How does any OS survive this? I can't think it would be too happy to
> find its swapped bits are all now zeros.
> I'm serious here- I don't understand. Enlighten me.
If you really want an OS to do this, it's not that
hard. You simply have to detect format requests
(independent of the driver), validate them (pass
a magic number, respond to a request for validation,
only allow trusted code to do a format), and
recover gracefully if the request is an error.
You may find it easier to implement some of this
in hardware (eg memory protection on X86's).
Implementing this will probably add cost, increase
development time, impact ease of use and reduce
performance -- there are tradeoffs between fault
tolerance and everything else. Your answer depends
on what you need (or how valuable the data on the
disk is vs. the probability of the fault occuring
in this case).
Note that you have to design this capability into
the OS - no amount of testing will prevent an
incompetent programmer from writing a driver
with the fault you describe.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Bill Gates just cant win
Date: 3 Mar 2000 18:45:49 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 16:58:05 GMT, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>REDMOND, Wash. -- Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) officials said that Windows
>2000 has gotten off to a surprisingly good start.
I would not expect any company to say anything other than this about their
new product. Can you imagine a corp saying "yeah our new Blammo2000 that
we spent $2 billion on is really losing out in the market"? I can't.
>that the industrial-strength operating system exceeded the company's
>own expectations by racking up more than 500,000 unit sales to small
>and medium businesses and to individual users in the U.S. alone.
How many of those were free upgrades sent to people who bought NT4 in the
last couple of months? How many were pre-orders, which the likes of
Microwarehouse have been taking for months? How many are actually in the
hands of users vs having been sold to CompUSA but still on the shelf?
There's lots of ways to make sales look however you want them to look.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Loose Cannon
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 18:47:29 GMT
Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, let's try it again.
>
> MacOS 8.6, G3-233, latest version of client.
>
> In foreground. 783kkey/sec (lintilla core- Damn that's good programming)
> In background, light use (reading news) 780 kkey/sec. Looks good.
> In background, downloading 100 MB of files from NT server through Fetch:
> 421 kkey/sec. Whoops
>
> So we lose roughly 40% of the speed as soon as we put a trivial load on
> the machine. There's no way an FTP connection should take 40% of the
> CPU of this machine.
You're right... it shouldn't.
When I ran the same test with Anarchie (grabbing files from a remote Web
site at 100+ kB/sec) instead of Fetch, my Mac dropped from 768 kkeys/sec
to 740 kkeys/sec, a drop of about 4%. On a second run, the drop was
only to 746 kkeys/sec.
The lesson? Fetch is a CPU hog. Use Anarchie.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Leblanc)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 18:51:30 GMT
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 12:05:05 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here's one possible solution: set a
>flag in your code that you want the denominator to be unity in the
>case of a divide by zero exception. There could be a provision in
>libc for this.
What make you think a division by one will be more correct than a division by
zero? What about doing proper bound checking instead? What about fixing the
code instead of trying to "fix" the symptom?
I just hope you're not a programmer.
--
Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Departement de Mathematique % Univ. du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Qc
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE?
Date: 3 Mar 2000 18:52:18 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:32:58 +0900, Kyo-Bang Chung
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My program runs well on kernel-2.2.12 and kernel-2.2.15, and
>crashes on the smp versions of both.
Your program or possibly a library is broken then. If the kernel was
"unstable on SMP", then I think it would be the kernel crashing rather
than your program.
>Does anyone have any idea of what is going on the smp kernel development?
You might try looking in the development newsgroups.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Loose Cannon
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 18:56:14 GMT
On 3 Mar 2000 16:29:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:41:25 GMT,
> Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2 Mar 2000 19:53:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > (Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 17:52:16 GMT,
> > > Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:20:02 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > How many machines do *you* know that are in active use today
> > > *and* were so 15,20,30 years ago?
>
> > 2 that I've worked with personally.
>
> So, does a single pentium outclass them yet or do you need a dual
> PII for that? The computing power of 20 years ago is not much
> today compared to entry-level PCs.
One of the 2 machines is (yes, it's still in use) a 386DX40 with
32MB RAM and an RLL drive on a 16MB cache card. I have 4
machines in pieces at home that outpower that thing.
> > There are thousands of
> > others... witness the demand for Cobol programmers that occured
> > in 1999.
>
> Code != Hardware.
You're right of course. However, code *implies* hardware, or at
least a generation of hardware, in many cases... COBOL being one
of them. COBOL has not been actively used for new development
since before the advent of cheap 64-bit hardware. This implies
that the vast amjority of COBOL code runs on 32-bit (or less)
machines. The bit restriction and the cost of storage forced the
decision to use 2-digit dates and voila, we have a Y2k problem.
> > This assumes the hardware will be replaced. This is not always
> > true. Take XYZ Corp. who just invested $UmpteenMillion in their
> > new WhizBang5000 Unix-based computer system. There's a *very*
> > good chance that system will still be there in 2038, operating
> > all of XYZ Corp.'s critical accounting and MRP functions.
>
> Sure. We are talking about quite a couple of generations here.
> Both in hardware and in software. While I personally would like
> to see Unix still being there 30 years from now, we must realize
> that Unix is the oldest 'still in use' OS --- and it's just 30
> years old. How old's Windows?
That's beside the point. Programmers must assume that anything
they write and sell commercially (or is used in any form
commercially) may well still be in use decades from now. To
assume it will be replaced is a mistake.
> > Why
> > replace it? It cost a whole lotta cash and it still works just
> > fine.
>
> And the electricity bill for a year could buy a more powerful
> replacement, too. Not to mention hardware maintenance and getting
> old style, really slow HDs, when everyone uses hi-speed 10'th
> generation holographic memories of a couple of 1000 Exabytes size
> as today we have 5GB drives ... and Terrabytes of 'RAM' in desk
> machines.
There's a fundamental point I keep trying to make but apparently
have not yet done so. Corporations move like mollasses and are
inherently incapable of taking on the smallest project without
having to spend millions. Though replacement hardware would be
relatively inexpensive, a large corp isn't going to buy an
adequate system, they're going to buy the Really Big Latest Thing
for 5 times more than they should because their too-expensive
consulting team told them to. Between the hardware, software,
and scores of consultants they have to hire (not to mention all
the retraining of their employees) to transition from the old MRP
system to the new one is far more cost-prohibitive than any corp
will take lightly. Corporations take the "short view" and are
much more willing to pay Bob's Bitchin Consulting to
incrementally maintain their systems than they are to shell out
huge piles of cash to do the job right -- it's cheaper in the
short term. Replacement is generally not an option no matter how
well justified it looks on paper.
All this results in one simple truth: We develop today, they use
nearly forever. This is both good and bad: Corporation X will
get screwed but the developer, if they're still breathing at the
time, has a guaranteed high-paid consulting job in 2037.
Jon
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:07:14 -0800
On 4 Mar 2000, Darren Winsper wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:18:54 GMT, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The fat lady is singing and PC gaming is emulate/copy the titles in
> > the more profitable console market.
>
> Eh?! Where's the equivalent to Unreal Tournament? Homeworld? ST:
> Armada? Remember the C&C games appeared on the PC first, so the
> console is actually emulating the PC there. Perhaps they have
> something to rival Freespace 2? No? Oh dear, your argument fell flat
> on its face.
What was my argument? You named some very interesting games best of the
breed for PCs - but you havent looked forward. There are some very
similar games in the works for consoles including the DC. Also there are
emulators literally that let a Mac and PC play PSX games. Well see more
of these emulators and/or ports.
I will not deny pioneering work on PCs in fact let me add that there are
very realistic simulators on UNIX workstations like SGI that predate the
PC and I do believe DOOMs engine was engineered on NeXT. These neat
technologies have migrated to the PC and to the console.
The problem is that the Moores law is catching up with the humans senses
(as it did with stereophonic music) so the technology edge PCs once had is
diminishing. Also increased realism also means production costs are up
ten fold (see Newsweek) and therefore demand larger markets than the PC
can offer to recover costs.
In addition MSs next generation OS for PCs is Whistler and then Blackcomb
pure Windows2000 corporate OS with all the baggage associated with running
that large OS. This years new generation of game consoles have enough
power and are so low cost and focused as entertainment devices that PCs
have been overwhelmed. Finally the internet/network allows a console to
act as a thin client, strong in graphical and multimedia, they are ideal
as a reliable, low cost access device for a wealth of media and content
that can be cached locally but is maintained and sold by a service
provider.
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
