Linux-Advocacy Digest #358, Volume #26 Wed, 3 May 00 23:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is the PC era over? (abraxas)
What will the restructuring of MS bring to the Open Source Community?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (abraxas)
Re: Is the PC era over? ("Stephen Pair")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Reservations about splitting up MS... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux NFS is buggy (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux NFS is buggy (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Help ... ... P l e a s e ? (John Travis)
Re: Linux NFS is buggy (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Do us a favor and leave. (Was dreamers) (Salvador Peralta)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Is the PC era over? (Andrew Carpenter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: 4 May 2000 02:36:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > My previous point still stands though. If Sun (or anyone) wants to
>> > return to dumb terminals, they'd better do it *really* cheap, not just
>> > slightly cheaper than a PC. What is the benefit?
>>
>> You get to run X11 natively. Thats a pretty big benefit.
> I can run X11 natively on pretty much anything now.
> Does the SunRay actually *run* X11 anyway, or is it just scraping off
> the server?
>
All X-Terminals (xservers) host a large portion of what you're looking at
locally, unless you have specialized remote services set up (font servers,
etc). This saves alot of bandwidth and generally makes things more
snappy.
>> VNC is ok for remote managment, but horrible for everything else. If I
>> want to be able to stream a 2d wireframe rotation on a Sun Ray, I can do
>> it with no problems at all. Such a thing isnt possible under VNC.
> It may not be practical (I've been told VNC is pretty slow), but why not
> possible?
Because VNC is pulling every single pixel from the machine in question.
Thats a hell of alot of traffic.
> So the SunRay can draw a bit faster, and presumably has better
> compression algorithms. There's no real fundamental difference though,
> is there?
It depends on what youre using it for. It has alot of features that are
not shared by other Xterminals or VNC, but not everyone needs to use them.
See the white papers and subsequent documentation on Sun's site.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: What will the restructuring of MS bring to the Open Source Community?
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 21:38:44 -0600
Yes?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: 4 May 2000 02:38:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >A standardized Biometrics API is certainly new. Today, if you want to
> write
>> >Biometric aware applications, you need to write to someone's API. And
>> >that's different for each product.
>>
>> But hardly rocket science. Various systems have abstract layers
>> to authentication services. Who cares how it was done (mother's
>> maiden name, 1-digit PIN, anal probe, etc...)
> Few innovations are rocket science. Rocket Science tends to be the
> application of such things in useful ways.
As a real live rocket scientist who worked for nasa a few years ago
told me on IRC once:
<zomzom> even rocket science isnt rocket science.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Pair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 22:32:53 -0400
> > VNC is ok for remote managment, but horrible for everything else. If I
> > want to be able to stream a 2d wireframe rotation on a Sun Ray, I can do
> > it with no problems at all. Such a thing isnt possible under VNC.
>
> It may not be practical (I've been told VNC is pretty slow), but why not
> possible? So the SunRay can draw a bit faster, and presumably has better
> compression algorithms. There's no real fundamental difference though,
> is there?
I recently implemented a VNC server for Squeak Smalltalk and it's a very
simple and handy protocol. But, with current bandwidth restrictions, it is
quite slow...however, I was running on a 10mbit ethernet network. I would
love to test it on fast ethernet...it should be much smoother.
Over the next few years, there will be a big push to increase bandwith to
the point where full motion video is possible over the open Internet...and,
if you think about VNC in those terms...all you really need to do anything
is 30fps. I'm quite positive that we'll eventually get there...and when we
do, I think an ultra thin client like VNC will be a compelling way to go.
But certainly not in the near future for many types of applications (for
admin purposes, it's quite handy right now). All VNC boils down to is
keeping a local and remote frame buffer synchronized. I'm sure that the
protocol could be expanded to encompass many types of BitBlt operations,
which should vastly improve it's overall performance. Right now, you only
get a few operations and compressed bitmap transfer.
- Stephen
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 22:41:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Bob May from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 3 May 2000 17:29:24 -0700
>Had a customer which was buying a product that we obsoleted 8 years
>ago - a switch card between CGA and a Video source (TARGA 16 card).
>Last run of 100 cards was 3 years ago just for him. How do you tell
>the customer that you aren't going to make anymore? That was his
>business! He now has to rebuild his software (written in some version
>of BASIC from the '80s). Where is he going to get a new compiler for
>the software conde he has? Visual Basic is so far from what he worked
>with that it is silly to contemplate for some. His costs have just
>gone up drastically just to keep up with the new hardware and software
>that is now mandatory.
>The biggest problem that I have is that the files made for much of the
>old software can't be opened by the new stuff that is more than 3
>generations newer. What a pity.
>That's what's wrong with not being able to get the older software.
Well, that is a sad story. It might make a beautiful and poignant book some
day, which explores the terrible and lonely pain of becoming obsolete. But
seriously, BASIC from the 80s? I mean, I'm a tron god, I know "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it", and GODS I wish we could do that more often. But there
comes a time...
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reservations about splitting up MS...
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 21:46:03 -0600
In article <8enq9l$gar$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> While it's nice to see Microsoft getting what they deserve (albeit from the
> government rather than all the roadkill they've left behind them) - from a
> Linux users' point of view, we might prefer to hope it doesn't get broken up
> into smaller companies.
>
> The problem is, if a baby-Microsoft was put in charge of maintaining future
> versions of Windows without the various distractions their current OS division
> is subject to, they might finally realise that they could make a much better OS
> if they focused on simplest solutions to problems and put their effort into
> getting everything to work properly before loading it up with pointless and
> unnecessary features, layering bugs on top of bugs.
>
> If this happened, Windows actually might become half decent. Not fully decent,
> but robust and reliable enough for all but the most dedicated hardcore geek.
> This would reduce the incentive to switch to Linux - afterall, we Linux users
> do put up with a lot of crap for our choice, we just happen to think that the
> benefits are worth it.
>
> In the meantime, lets make sure the momentum continues - keep making Linux
> easier for the wannebe-not-quite-there-yet-nerds who want to learn, and keep
> improving the apps - I'm doing my bit, whenever I get the chance.
>
Forgive my denseness once again:
Who says Linux is to be a replacement/competitor
for Windows?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux NFS is buggy
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 02:46:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 03 May 2000 15:44:01 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Welcome to the wonderful world of Linux....
>
>Two questions if I may ask?
>
>Why in the world would you want to poison a professional, time proven
>real Unix operating system like Solaris with junk like Linux?
>
>How many man hours billed in dollars/hour have you spent already
>trying to make this thing work?
>
>That's the hidden part of Linux they like to ignore.
Yeah, you're right; they should integrate NT with it, instead.
(Pull the other one. It plays piano music. :-) )
>
>On Wed, 03 May 2000 13:39:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) wrote:
>
>>We have an Ultra 10 running Solaris 2.7 with a SCSI DAT Drive. We NFS
>>mount the users' files on a second Ultra, a Sparc 10, an old HP UNIX
>>box and an old SCO Intel box so they may be tar'd to tape.
>>
>>About a month ago we introduced a Linux box (Mandrake 7.x) into the
>>equation. What a mistake! The backup stops at random locations
>>within the NFS mounted Linux file system. At first we thought the
>>tape drive was faulty and dragged a Sun technician out to replace it.
>>But the problems still recurred.
>>
>>We spent a good fortnight getting NFS on the Linux box to work in the
>>first place. Now we find it's buggy.
>>
>>The irony of this is that we are now looking at using a cron job to
>>use Samba to backup the users' files onto the NT box sitting on my
>>desk. We are hoping that Samba (unlike NFS) works reliably on Linux.
>>
>>At this stage we are all quite fed up with this pile of crap you
>>people seem to think is God's gift to the IT industry.
>>
>>No wonder they give the thing away.
I've seen a variant of this problem, and it may be related to
a block size change that occurred some years back, IIRC; older systems
use a 1024-byte block to transfer NFS data back and forth on
the Ethernet; newer systems (such as Linux!) use 4096-byte
blocks. Of course, if a 4096-byte block is requested or shoved
at a system expecting 1024 bytes, things tend to break.
If the Linux box is mounting NFS drives from other systems, you can
try options such as 'rsize=1024,wsize=1024' to try
to work around this problem; see the 'mount' manpage. Granted,
these options are intended to be used on the Linux box; since you
seem to be indicating that the Linux box is being used as a
storage repository, I'm not quite sure what to advise.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux NFS is buggy
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 02:53:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ben Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 3 May 2000 14:34:15 -0600 <8eq2g7$4lb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <8epo5k$u9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>
>>That you are using tar to make backups shows that you don't have a
>>clue about proper backup procedures. So don't come here to
>>pretend you have half an idea because you don't.
>
>Tar is fine for backups, quick and simple. I have my own homegrown backup
>scripts that do full and various different level incremental backups and
>use tar to write to tape. I generate log files and can generate an
>approximate index file which I can use to quickly locate a file with mt
>that I need to restore. We have a tape jukebox which I use a a generic
>SCSI changer driver to control. We have 4 servers with almost 300 GB of
>disk space. After a modest amount of effort to write the scripts, backups
>run every night flawlessly out of cron. I have looked at amanda and bru,
>and have been unimpressed. I can do everything I need with a few scripts
>that use tar.
Tar is useful, if one doesn't have issues with deep directory paths.
I also use tar for local backups. Note that strict tar can only handle
pathnames of 100 bytes or less; GNU tar has extended this to work with
either 256 or 1,024 bytes (I forget which). Most users don't have
ultra-deep pathnames, but one never knows anymore. :-)
There's also the infamous "/tmpmnt/" problem (not limited to tar)
if one uses an automounter. Since the original user indicated he
was trying to use a Linux box as a file server (and back it up
from another machine), this might be an issue.
Or it might not. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help ... ... P l e a s e ?
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 21:59:00 -0500
tom wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Personally, I'd avoid the whole linux-on-a-windows-partition thing
> and install
> > to a native linux partition, for several reasons.
> > Speed, stability and security. That's my 2c on that part.
>
> Both are very good reasons. However, I'm assuming I would need a third
> HD to start with such a clean slate and that seems like a rather
> extreme option for somebody's who's not even sure he'd want Linux
> installed permanently.
>
> Tom
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
If you have enough room to install it to a dos partition, then you have
enough room to shrink your fat/fat32 partition(s) and set linux up on a
native. I didn't see the original message so I am not sure exactly what
problems you are having. In my opinion you should take the offer for
the mandrake cd. I have used them both and I much prefer mandrake.
P.S. What are you talking about when you say you are formatting the
partition with fips. If you are just installing it to a umsdos
partition than you shouldn't have to do anything as far as formatting.
Just let the installer set it all up for you.
jt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux NFS is buggy
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 02:59:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 03 May 2000 20:47:54 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Wed, 03 May 2000 12:34:55 -0800, Stephen Bodnar
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full
>>Name) wrote:
>[deletia]
>
> Besides, DAT's are relatively failure prone as media goes.
I'll second that emotion. My DAT never worked quite right, although
it did write tapes. (But I could also see the wheels moving back
and forth and back and forth and back and forth as it was writing
them. This does not inspire much confidence.)
It's an HP DAT, too; HP's supposed to make good hardware -- however,
not good enough for my tastes. (Still, I'm not sure I blame them,
really.)
I switched to a SyQuest SyJet (1.5 GB removable) some time ago for
backups; the only problem I have with *that* is SyQuest's financial
difficulties interfering with my ability to get media for it. New
users could probably go equally well with a 1 GB or 2 GB JAZ drive,
and get similar performance.
It's also good for storing such things as RedHat distributions. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do us a favor and leave. (Was dreamers)
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 20:04:08 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I spent the better part of my morning wading through rpg code and cl's
on an AS/400 trying to debug an application that was purchased for
aseveral thousand from a private vendor. The vendor built a binary
object which is a functional equivalent of a cgi script that takes user
input, stores it in a database, passes some of the data to sendmail
which then routes email and makes a sends a synamic http response.
The old application (if we were to keep it) would have to get called
from a different proprietary interface, and there is some question of
whether all of the variables will get called correctly from the new
programming environment. Since we did not have rights to the source
over the compiled object, we cannot fully test the application in the
new environment without paying additional consulting fees.
After spending 3-4 hours doing due diligince testing the legacy
application, i wrote a perl script that handles the same functions on
linux from an html form. If we were so inclined, we could serve it on a
cheap server that handles nothing but scripts. Total cost: 8 hours
salary
~ 3 hours of analysis
~ 2-3 hours documentation on old system process
~ 1 hour writing and testing perl scripts.
~ 1 hour developing the visual interface
Cost of System is less than $1500 per annum including bandwidth and
maintenance
We could host that single script on a server which server no other
purpose and including hardware and labor, it would cost less than 2 days
of consulting on the original proprietary application.
That's the power of open source.
Cihl wrote:
>
> But you'll see, Linux will catch up sooner or later. Linux isn't there to
> destroy Microsoft, Linux these days is there primarily there to test a
> different philosophy behind making software. And, to be honest, for the
> sheer -fun- of it. :-)
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 22:03:24 -0500
On 4 May 2000 01:36:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat) wrote:
>dc wrote:
>
>>Something's obviously wrong with that, though, because I now can't get
>>any of my modules to work. Since my PCMCIA controller is controlled
>>with a module, that laptop's dead in the water unless someone
>>(please!) can tell me what's wrong. It's done this time and time and
>>time again, and it's become very frustrating. I've renamed the
>>/var/modules dir to /var/mod2 and made a new, empty /var/modules
>>directory, to no avail (but after that, it only gets 3 or 4 dirs in
>>there when I do a make modules_install, although granted I've left out
>>most options that I don't need - sound, MMX, extra IDE support, SCSI,
>>etc., and my modules.dep is only 2k or so in size...) The modules
>>page in the kernel's menuconfig has 3 entries in it, and all are
>>selected; it _should_ load the modules just fine, no? I get all
>>kinds of errors when the modules try to load up from depmod, devfs
>>isn't found, and no entries for a PCMCIA controller are found in
>>/proc/pcmcia, so eth0 doesn't come up.
>
>try not building pcmcia as a module or check your /etc/conf.modules.
How would I not build it as a module? There's no option in menuconfig
for PCMCIA at all....it's just automatic, isn't it?
What would I 'check' in /etc/conf.modules?
More details, please.
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 12:37:18 +0930
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can run X11 natively on pretty much anything now.
> > Does the SunRay actually *run* X11 anyway, or is it just scraping off
> > the server?
>
> All X-Terminals (xservers) host a large portion of what you're looking at
> locally, unless you have specialized remote services set up (font servers,
> etc). This saves alot of bandwidth and generally makes things more
> snappy.
I agree. However, I didn't see anything on Sun's site that said the
SunRay *was* an xserver. I got the impression that it was purely a
terminal that displayed pixels as sent by the server (albeit with some
sophisticated algorithms). Am I incorrect in this assumption?
> >> VNC is ok for remote managment, but horrible for everything else. [...]
>
> > It may not be practical (I've been told VNC is pretty slow), but why not
> > possible?
>
> Because VNC is pulling every single pixel from the machine in question.
> Thats a hell of alot of traffic.
That's not entirely true is it? I understood it did region grabs, and
could select appropriate compression for those regions. Not to say it's
not still relatively inefficient.
> > So the SunRay can draw a bit faster, and presumably has better
> > compression algorithms. There's no real fundamental difference though,
> > is there?
>
> It depends on what youre using it for. It has alot of features that are
> not shared by other Xterminals or VNC, but not everyone needs to use them.
> See the white papers and subsequent documentation on Sun's site.
I read some of them a while back, but didn't see many real world-beating
features. It has the hot-desk thing, granted -- but so could (does?) VNC
and equivalent systems. Beyond that, and more intelligent image
transfers, what else?
I'm not really arguing that any given system is a true equal to the
SunRay. But I am saying that the differences you point to are simply a
matter of implementation: VNC (for example) could use an improved
transfer algorithm, and do hot-desking with a user/pwd login (the
smartcard is just a shortcut).
Look at it another way: there are many CPU-intensive visual apps that
result in most of the screen changing every frame (3D games being an
obvious example). Which seems more efficient to you -- hosting the
process for each app at the server and sending a full screen each frame
to each client; or hosting the data (and a shared server process if
there is one) at the server, running the app at the client and sending
only the information needed?
This isn't to say that the SunRays may not have their place; VT100
terminals still have their place! I'm just dismayed by Sun's attitude
that this is the best way to go.
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
