Linux-Advocacy Digest #636, Volume #25 Wed, 15 Mar 00 07:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Comparison between Linux and FreeBSD! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Open Software Reliability (Terry Murphy)
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (Truckasaurus)
SAS Institute to port SAS software to Linux. (Truckasaurus)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Truckasaurus)
Re: which OS is best? (Joseph Joyce)
Linux based software to US government? ("John")
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? (Sal Denaro)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? (Sal Denaro)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison between Linux and FreeBSD!
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:12:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Id like to get the "linux" opinion of this issue, What are your
> opinions?
Fundamentally, the primary difference between Linux and BSD is the
license agreement. There are differences in the kernels, and there
are differences in the implementations of the kernel and the utilities.
The BSD 4.4 source code release was "cleaned up". The kernel was
carefully beautified, production code was managed by revision control
systems, and the file system was enhanced.
The BSD variants are direct decendents of Berkely BSD 4.X Unix, one
of the most sophisticated kernels ever designed. Some of these systems
are extremely reliable and efficient.
One of the disadvantages is that the source revisions can be kept
proprietary or published. There isn't even the requirement to have
enhancements sent to the primary author or coordinator.
Linux has a more comprehensive license agreement, which can be
used to control enhancements to the primary set of tools.
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:23:16 GMT
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:03:48 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, more than a claim. UNIX, and subsequently Linux
>have set unprecedented levels of reliability. Much of this
>due to the combination of AT&T culture and Open Source culture.
Unix is one of the most notoriously unreliable operating systems
in the history of computing. Its initial implementations did not
even run on hardware with memory protection. For the first 20 years
of its existence it had to be constantly rebooted and its reliability
was ridiculed compared to the mainframes. Even today, the unreliability
stands. eBay has lost _b_illions in market capitalization due to bugs
in Unix. Where I work, our Linux servers need to be constantly rebooted
because the NFS implementation is so riddled with bugs, and there is
no way to fix things besides reboot. At least Unix reboots fast - it
needs to be rebooted so often that it better be.
AT&T culture, and open source culture, aren't engineering entities,
they are research entities, and are more interested in creating
research vehicles than products. The products are not engineered to
be bulletproof or reliable.
_Today_, VMS has the following markets:
90% of worldwide microprocessor production
Runs 17 of the world's 20 largest stock exchanges (and over 100 worldwide)
Handles 60% of electronic bank-to-bank transacations
Runs 30 top telecommunications billing systems worldwide
.
.
.
Source: Wall Street Journal 20-FEB-1999
And so on and so forth. You can throw around all of your trendy,
teeny-bopper, "open source is the future" nonsense, but that does
not change what real companies are using in serious installations.
And it is not open source. Heck, open source can barely keep afloat
with Microsoft let alone the important things.
>This is the first big myth that needs to be exploded. For the most
>part, open source software is developed by system administrators
>for system administrators.
And it is preferable to have software which controls nuclear reactors
written by sysadmins (as opposed to professional engineers) for what
reason? These makes Unix more reliable than the more robust operating
systems, such as VMS, why?
>The original "open source project" was AT&T UNIX. AT&T donated
>version 6 UNIX, in source code format to these Universities and
>colleges. Prior to this type of publication it was considered to
>complex to be reliable.
Other operating systems which are considerably more complex than Unix have
no problem being ultra-reliable. Why did Unix have so many problems being
reliable circa Version 6 (when it was EXTREMELY primitive - it didn't
even support networking and advanced features such as clustering were --
and still are -- a huge way off)? This is because Unix was an undesigned,
hack, with poor/no engineering principles. VMS was much more complex in
1983 than Unix is today (and perhaps about 10x as feature-ful as Version
6), but it had/has no problems being dominantly more reliable than Unix
is. If the original development of Unix had any serious engineering
done it would have been reliable, but it wasn't, and that is why it is
so unreliable today.
>Keep it mind that even today, the average UNIX or Linux based server
>supports no less than 100 concurrent users. Many support as many as
>1000 concurrent connections per processor. Even the most trivial bug
>can become incredibly costly. As a result, the control has become
>quite sophisticated.
Proof please? Which companies deploy Linux servers which supports
1000 concurrent users (i.e. logins, not HTTP requests)?
>In 1984, the military tried to get all government programmers to
>use ADA. Their hope was that the software produced would be so
>reliable that they could use it to guide nuclear missles from space.
>
>Eventually, the military began to see that the open source community
>was achieving - for a fraction of the cost, what the military had
>spent nearly $1 trillion over several years to achieve.
Proof please? Please show me documentation that the US military is
using open source software to guide nuclear missiles from space (and,
I mean the software running on the missile, or control centers, not
some print server in the back room of a design center).
>Keep in mind, that UNIX (all that code that get included with the
>Linux kernel) has been used to control Nuclear Reactors, manage nearly
>all telecommunications traffic, provide the services of the Web,
>distributed financial information, and even clear real-time financial
>transactions such as those conducted on the stock exchanges.
Proof please? Please tell me which Nuclear Reactors, which
telecomunnications traffic centers, and which stock exchanges run on any
brand of Unix (and, no, a print server in a back room doesn't count).
As for "the services of the Web", yes, Unix does indeed rule that,
but it is also one of the most UNRELIABLE computer services in the
history. C.f. "the world wide wait", repeated frustrations with various
servers (almost all of which run Unix) randomly crashing. Look at the
recent report that said something like 25% of potential e-commerce
transactions due to server problems - this is Unix unreliability
costing companies billions of dollars. All to blame on Unix.
Unix users are proud of the World Wide Web, but in fact, I would be
extremely ashamed if my OS choice controlled that (and if it was still as
unreliable as it is now), and would try to downplay its dominance.. Please
point to a Unix SUCCESS, not a failure.
>As a result, the same code used to manage powerplants, simulate
>the airfoils of 747s, and control the worlds largest global networks
>ran transparently on Linux.
Proof please? Please prove that Linux controls any of these applications.
Regards,
Terry Murphy
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:17:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James McLaren wrote:
> >
> > Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed.
I got
> > the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en
masse if
> > they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help
I'm
> > calling it a day.
> >
> > How you can expect first time computer recruits to embrace Linux I
just
> > don't know. Not with the current level of support that's for dammed
sure :)
> >
> > James <- Asbestos jox in situ
>
> WHY do people keep posting `Linux will fail' gibberish? There some
very
> good reasons why it wont (to winvocates: this has *nothing* do do with
> replacing windows, so don't bother replying along that line)
Because a lot of winvocates feel that they are losing when they compare
Linux and Windows?? They might think that if they prognosticate the
death of Linux, they can scare potential users of Linux back into
the Windows herd!?!
Anyway, it wont work. As the effort of Bill Gates to ignore the internet
to death failed, these pityful effort will also be in vain. For Linux
(Open source in general) is very Darwinistic in it's nature, only the
best projects survive - and the surviving projects are the most fit.
> First, and foremost, it started in Linus computer, with a single user.
> Its got to where it is (> 1e6 users) by being the way it is, so why is
> the way it is going to make it fail?
Exactly! "Linux has been growing since day 1 (in 1991), and in the year
20??, when the system is better than ever, has more users than
ever, and has more support from commercial companies than ever, it just
suddenly 'dies'".
What kind of moron makes such a prediction, with no other reasoning than
"I had trouble with Linux, so it must be bad".
> Secondly, people like using it for fun, as well. They (we) won't stop,
> because we like it. That is another reason why it won't sink without a
> trace in a few years.
Exactly! As long as people use it, it will exist and develop. As long
as it exists and develops, it will be able to attract new users.
Try to break that circle (Hint: Microsoft has tried for some time now,
as have various Winvocates, And while they where trying, the Linux
community got stronger and Linux got better and more popular.
Good Luck!)
> A less qualifiable argument is that it is very good (IMHO), so people
> will use it, but I think that the first argument carries most weight.
As mentioned above, as long as Linux (Open source in general) is used,
it's alive. As long as there are people who think Linux is good, it
will be used.
So this might be the most qualifiable argument. Well, all three are
connected somehow, so you can't really pick one out and say
'this is it!'
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your new you packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.soft-sys.sas
Subject: SAS Institute to port SAS software to Linux.
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:30:56 GMT
http://www.sas.com/new/preleases/031400/news1.html:
<QUOTE>
"We have surveyed our customers regarding Linux and closely monitored
the Linux marketplace for some time," said Keith Collins, SAS
Institute's vice president of research and development. "Based on
positive customer feedback, as well as the increasing number of Fortune
1000 companies looking seriously at Linux as a viable operating-system
choice for their enterprise-wide business applications, we felt that
the time was right for us to offer a Linux version of SAS software.
We're also pleased by the recent moves to support Linux by IBM, Intel
and other SAS technology partners."
</QUOTE>
Let me congratulate SAS Institute and the Linux community, for this
wise decision by SAS Institute.
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your new you packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.app
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:43:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if Steve Jobs think Microsoft Windows is 'absolutely tastless' , i
> really would like to know what kind of words will he be using
regarding
> X windows, Motif or CDE.
>
> -- this is purely fiction:
> What do you want a big screen(more pixels) for?
> X windows: Bigger letters, of course!
X xindows: If _you_ don't want more pixels, don't use them.
> Windows: So you can see more letters at once.
Windows: So that we can fill your screen with more sodding paperclips!
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your new you packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Joyce)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 15 Mar 2000 10:39:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Lyday) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chad, you may be interested to know that that is why a lot of us
>hate M$. We don't hate them cuz they are "too successful." We
>are not fans of excessive government regulation. We don't hate
>them cuz they make lousy products. We don't hate them cuz they
>are a monopoly.
Lousy products? Have you ever played Age of Empires II or Alliegence?
They ought to be a gameing company.
--
Joseph Joyce
-
Fake IEN Employee
------------------------------
From: "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Linux based software to US government?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:55:59 +0100
Hi there!
We are currently evaluating Linux (RTLinux to be more specific) as the
operating system for our control software. Part of our products are sold to
the US government. Does they accept products which are 'equipped' with
Linux? Is there a place where I can find more info on this?
Thanks!
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:17:09 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8alsm0$lvs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What children learning software and games are there for your children
> on Linux?
There is a dire shortage of educational s/w for Linux. I'm not denying
that. There is some available however and I'm sure the situation will
rapidly improve. As for games I like the games that you can get for
Linux and my kids enjoy some of them as well. They use a playstation
for those other type of games.
> What do they typically use the computer for? Learning? Playing games?
> Browsing the web?
They use the computer as a tool and not a toy. I have 4 children
ranging from 17 to 3 years old. The older 2 use ApplixWare and
StarOffice (they are comfortable with either) for school work. Each
term they have to make a presentation on a chosen topic to their
classes. They use netscape to research these projects. They love using
spreadsheets. Once I showed then how a spreadsheet works their
imagination for using it quite astounds me. They also use it for
homework. My youngest daughter, 11, uses Applix and StarOffice for
writing letters and drawing. She can spend hours doing this. Much
better than playing games me thinks. My son is 3 and everything in
life is a toy to him at this time.
> What type of computer education are you giving them simply because of
> your overly-biased and ignorance-founded hatred for Microsoft?
They are forced to use M$ s/w at school and they are always
complaining about it. They seem to have little trouble in using both
OS's however. The older 2 definitely prefer Linux however (by Linux
I mean the complete SuSE Linux package of course and not just the
kernel). Their PC is a 133MHz pentium (non-MMX) with 64MB ram. More
than adequate.
> Are you sacrificing the well being and mental development of your
> children simply because you're too ignorant?
This is a typical remark from you. It is you who shows ignorance with
almost every post you make. I have worked in s/w for almost 25 years.
I watched the rise of M$. I thought this was a great opportunity to
bring computers to the masses. They have achieved this. Unfortunately
most people now think computers are supposed to crash. The windows gui
is pathetic IMNHO. It lacks consistency. Sometimes clicking on a
window that is not on top brings the window to the front but doesn't
affect the cursor position. Other times it does. Take outlook, I want
to copy the email address of someone from the address book. Can't do
it. Ok I want to type the address into another window. Can't do it. I
must close the address book window with the email address I want to
copy first. Absolute crap. With X and a decent window manager (which
is most window managers) you choose how you want your desktop to
behave.
I do a lot of work from home. With X it is just like being at my work-
station at work (albeit a bit slower via isdn but using ssh with
compression makes it very usable).
So you stick with M$ windows. Just accept that Linux is a viable desk-
top already. If it is pre-installed there is no reason why the vast
majority of PC users can't use it.
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> And I am sick and tired of this line. My kids use Linux on their
>> PC (no M$ in this house) and they never use the command-line. They
>> login via kdm, wm is xfce and everything they need is setup on
>> the xfce control panel. They use it daily and never complain.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:58:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:31:58 -0600, MJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perhaps, but perhaps not. It depends on a number of things. MacOS X might
>ship with buggy C libs that require workarounds.
Funny but I didn't see any problems with DR1 or DR2 back in '97 and every
report I've heard since then has stated that DP3's Unix parts are vastly
improved.
>It could include namespaces
>that clash with existing software.
I haven't heard of any in any of the betas so far.
>Any number of small discrepancies could
>break software portability. Even early versions of LinuxPPC had
>compatibility problems with x86 Linux software;
To be understood in a 0.xx version OS. This is a 5.0 version OS. I would
expect that anything in the FreeBSD ports tree to _just work_; with the
exception of X clients. For those to work you need an X server.
>I don't expect MacOS X to do
>better, and I do expect it will be somewhat worse.
Based on what? Have you used DP3? Have you used OSX Server?
>At best, you can argue that MacOS X is compatible for console Unix software
>and software depending only on the GNU toolchain. Beyond that, all bets are
>off.
Based on what? Based on your expert opinion, what would prevent Quartz from
hosting a rootless X server? What would prevent GNOME or KDE from running
on an OSX native X server?
>GTK, QT, SDL... any of these available on MacOS X yet?
I vaguely remember John Carmac managing to get KDE running on OSX via his
X11 port. Don't remember if it was running local or running on a remote
Linux box. I would think that a fair amount of X stuff would be running on
OSX within 90 days of it shipping. At the very least, KDE and Gnome. They
both run just fine under FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD. Not sure why there
would be any problem with running under OSX.
>You already
>mentioned kernel modules and X11. In other words, the lion's share of Linux
>software;
Hardly. Linux has 25% of all new server shipments but only 4% of the desktop.
That's 3rd place behind MacOS. Most _server_ software will run unchaged. Some
X stuff will run when you add an X server.
>the very argument made by many who advocate the use of a Linux
>Unix operating system layer.
Sheesh. Do we have to dredge this up again?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:58:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:23:00 GMT,
Charles W. Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In an open market, sure. But let's remember that Microsoft isn't the only
>company to play hardball tactics with file formats, extending open standards
>with proprietary extensions, and so forth. Some people argue that Apple is
>doing something similiar with QuickTime.
QuickTime's file format is open. The issue is with CODECs and Apple doesn't
own those.
If there were high quality _open source_ CODECs, there would be no issue
in getting QuickTime movies on Linux.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
