Linux-Advocacy Digest #21, Volume #27 Sun, 11 Jun 00 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Mac = Playstation? Unix useless?(was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north) (Bob
Germer)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (2:1)
Re: No need to take sides (2:1)
Re: x86 processor mode and Linux (2:1)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (2:1)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (2:1)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (2:1)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (2:1)
Re: Terry Murphy Demonstrates Bald-Faced Lying -was- Open Source Programmers
Demonstrate Incompetence (2:1)
Re: No need to take sides (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mac = Playstation? Unix useless?(was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north)
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:39:10 GMT
On 06/11/2000 at 05:58 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) said:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) said:
> >> I dont run windows by the way, or OS2. In case you thought you were
> >> getting my goat or something. :)
> >Then there are only 2 possibilities. You are running a MAC which is
> >nothing more than a glorified Playstation or you are running some form of
> >unix which makes your machine virtually useless for 99.98% of business
> >customers.
> How is a Macintosh a glorified Playstation? That's pure idiocy.
> Compared to a Playstation, a Macintosh is essentially a rather weird
> flavor of PeeCee.
Since a Mac cannot open the very large spreadsheets common found on our
clients' machines and since there is nothing coming even close to the
capabilities of DB2 for the Mac and since it cannot run the custom billing
and timekeeping software some of our clients have be very happily using
for up to 17 years, it cannot be classified as a full fledged computer. A
Playstation is almost as good at running games as the best Macs costing 10
times as much. Thus the Mac is nothing more than a glorified Playstation.
> Unix? How is it useless? What do you think all those purchases of Unix
> servers are made by?
Unix is worthless to most businesses for client machines because they
cannot run the software in which they have tens or hundreds of thousands
of dollars invested. Most businessmen (other than mom and pop stores,
offices, etc.) will not run other than commercially available software.
The will not 'upgrade' just because some spoiled brat with more money than
God says they should. They will not buy new computers just because Bill
Gates says they must.
Take a typical client of ours, a 40 workstation law firm in business for
30 years or so. They first used Wang WordProcessors as a migration from
typewriters. In 1988, we converted them to a Novell Network and
WordPerfect when they had 24 workstations and a server. They purchased
custom written billing/time keeping software written for DOS. They
purchased sufficient licenses to run SEA's internal email software.
Over the years we have added a second server, a dozen laser printers,
about 16 work stations, and upgraded various hard drives, etc. After their
fax machines began to break down due to overloads, they bit the bullet and
installed V.34 internal modems and phone lines adequate to support them in
most of the workstations. They were upgraded to Warp 3 around that time so
that they could run Faxworks on all those workstations while still using
WordPerfect and the billing/timekeeping software simultaneously, internal
email, etc. and they bought DB/2 from IBM to replace what was still being
done manually. They had also, at my recommendation, bought Bitstream's
Facelift package to add fonts to their WordPerfect documents.
They evaluated proposals from our competitors who were trying to convert
them to Windows 3.11 for Workgroups. That would have required them to
purchase 30 some site licenses for DOS 5, 30 some for Windows 3.11, and
spend around $15,000 for billing/time keeping software since what they had
would not run under Windows 3.11. They would also have had to spend money
for new email software.
The cost of DOS 5 +Win 3.11 was almost exactly comparable to Warp 3 on a
per machine basis. It gave them all the capabilities that DOS+Win 3.11 did
at a much lower cost. Their fonts were still available, their clerical
employees had no retraining costs other than learning how to click on an
icon rather than hitting a menu choice letter or number. All of their
existing documents were still available without need for reformatting, all
their employees saw no real change other than having a desktop with icons
rather than a menu, etc. In other words the cost of the OS was the total
cost.
And not unlike several of our clients, they still run Warp 3 quite
productively. It hasn't cost them a cent in software to become Y2K
compliant. Fortunately, the billing software was written to be compliant
and a free fixpack from IBM handled the OS including DOS. Moreover, they
are running machines as workstations which would not even have sufficient
disk space to load Windows 98. Their old 386's with 16 megs of memory
still work just fine. They only upgrade when a machine fails for one
reason or another. Even those old 386's are faster than the best typist in
the world.
According to MS and others, anything latest than the fastest machine with
the biggest hard disk, a 17 inch monitor, etc. is obsolete. By that
thinking, Ford would have to replace every piece of equipment in every one
of its assembly plants every couple of years. As a matter of fact they
don't and won't. And neither do most successful business persons replace
their PC's every couple of years nor do they need to do so. --
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zf Registration Number 67
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:01:35 +0100
M. N. wrote:
>
> Solaris 8 piece o' crap don't even have Adaptec 29160N support..
> LAMERZZZ! :-) And my Linux 2.3.99 runs it a-ok! NYAH! There you have
> it Solariz bitchez ;-).
>
> Well, I'd like to see how solaris performs on a INtel 866Mhz, but
> until they release 29160 Adaptec drivers, I can't. Anyone have a clue
> about 29160N and when does Sun intend on releasing the drivers?
>
> M.
Whatever...
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2000 14:29:07 GMT, "Lord Williams"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Technically Solaris is more advanced especially in
> >features for working on very large systems -- ones with dozens of processors
> >or even clusters of ones with dozens of processors. It "scales" much better
> >meaning that as processors are added performance goes up. This is never
> >linear, i.e., 8 processors won't give you twice the performance of 4, but for
> >most operating systems, especially NT but now, anyway, still Linux, you get
> >zero additional performance after 4 for NT and probably the same for Linux.
> >Solaris is also much much more stable. Big Solaris systems attain what's
> >known as "5 9's" -- 99.999% uptime. That comes out to 5 minutes of downtime
> >per year.
> >
> >Still Linux has some nice advantages of its own. It has lots of driver
> >support. It easily outshines Solaris in support for the types of devices
> >you find on PC's -- the myriad of boards. Someone somewhere has built a
> >driver for just about anything you might have.
That is one of the main advantages of linux, there are millions of
people working on it at once.
> >It also has desktop tools and
> >utilities. Solaris has become mainly a server operating system so people
> >aren't building office sorts of products for Solaris.
Staroffice is avaliable for solaris (as expectes as Sun took over
StarDivision), but not everyone likes StarOffice.
> >There is some activity
> >in products like this for Linux, but still nothing like what's available for
> >Windows, not even 1%. Solaris is free for individual use but it is not free
> >for commercial use which Linux is.
I don't think this is quite true. S/Intel seems to be free for
commercial use as long as you don't use it for certain things, as far as
I remember. It seems to be OK to use it (for free) to do minor tasks
like small mail servers.
> >However the downside is that there is no market value for anyone programming
> >in Linux or anyone administrating networks in Linux ( Its the same problem with
Administering networks in Linux? there's certainly good money in
administering large hetrogenous networks, and they may well contain
Linux, but, yes, there aren't many places with Linux only hetworks.
> >BeOS). However there is a great market value for Solaris OS platform
> >programming and administration fields. Solaris programmers are more sucessful
> >programmers than linux programers, their pay salery is far greater.
-Ed
---
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:02:01 +0100
Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
>
> It's only a computer.
>
> That's all I have to say.
Is't not only a computer it's a _religion_!
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: x86 processor mode and Linux
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:03:21 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Hai says...
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I was wondering, what processor modes( aka Ring Levels aka CPL) does Linux
> >use on the x86?
>
> When linux boots in runs in 16 bit real mode, but then switches to
> protected mode (386 4GB flat memory model) right soon after doing
> some housekeeping stuff, it switches mode in
> /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/setup.S :
>
> # Now we want to move to protected mode ...
> cmpw $0, %cs:realmode_swtch
> jz rmodeswtch_normal
>
> lcall %cs:realmode_swtch
>
> jmp rmodeswtch_end
>
> And linux continue to run in that mode thereafter...
Unless you run a virtual machine such as VMWare or DOSEmu
-Ed
>
> Nasser
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:09:37 +0200
> In article <393e360d$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I might have given that statement some credit if it wasn't for the way
> > > you use the word "liberal" - as if it was a bad thing.
> > It most assuredly is in the way it is used in the US. Liberal here means
> > an all-controlling, big brother goverment which attempts to control every
> > action of every citizen except the elite ruling class.
I couldn't find the "US" definition of "liberal" in any english
dictionary - looks like the Americans don't speak English. Anyway,
Germer is not a liberal, but his definition of liberal is. The word
defined before liberal also fits his - libel: a written ...
representation that gives an unjustly unfavorable impression of a ...
thing.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:09:31 +0200
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 23:09:02 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (C Lund) wrote:
>
> >In article <393b879b$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> If the MAC OS was superior to those available for the Intel platform, it
> >> would be dominant. It was rejected by the marketplace.
> >
> >And once again a wintroll makes the error of assuming popularity =
> >quality. An infiriour product with a lower price and supiriour marketing
> >can easily outsell the supiriour product. Particularily when people who've
> >tried Windows think the mac is just a variation of the same theme.
>
> Actually, Bob's an OS/2 fan. That's why most of us are having
> problems figuring out his statement.
What else is new? Like anything Germer posts, it's usefull only for
entertainment.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:13:13 +0100
Rich C wrote:
>
> "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:bnw05.471$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > It takes a few brain cells, but if you put your CD on maybe Z or
> > something,
> > > you never have a problem. BTW my DVD is X, my CDR is Y and my Zip is Z.
> > I
> > > never had any problem add new HDs. Currently I have 2 HDs, C and D. I
> > will
> > > be adding one by the end of the month, which will be E, unless I do
> > > something dumb like partitioning it with a Primary Partition.
> >
> > It's useful if you set it up like that before installing everything.
> > Unfortunatly I didn't :)
> >
> > The most noticeable time this occurs is when Windows asks for me to insert
> > the CD to copy some files from it (whenever installing drivers or changing
> > network settings.) Then it expects them to all be on D:\WIN98 when they
> are
> > actually on E:\WIN98. This is how it was until my reinstall of a few days
> > ago anyway.
> >
> > > I don't know about Removeable drives. Partition Magic is what I would
> > use
> > > if I had to repartition (I have used it), my HD and that takes care of
> > all
> > > the links, including the stuff in the registry.
> > > What software lets you format a CD with Partitions???? CDs are
> composed
> > of
> > > Tracks.
> >
> > IIRC: CDs can be partitioned into different volumes, as they are just
> > another form of disk medium. An example is a data/audio CD - the data
> track
> > is mounted as a volume, and the audio track is accessable from within CD
> > Player. Also, those countless presentational CDs containing Macromedia
> > displays that are given away with everything nowadays often contain an HFS
> > partition which my Mac uses, and a FAT partition which contains an EXE for
> > PC-using people to play with. Although my Mac correctly read and mounted
> > both partitions on the desktop, my PC didn't reveal the HFS partition -
> I'm
> > not sure whether this is because Windows can't read HFS volumes, or just
> > because it's a big pile of arse. :)
> >
>
> CD sessions (volumes as you call them) are NOT the same as partitions on a
> hard drive. When you insert a multi-session CD into a CDROM drive, you get
> ONE drive letter. Since there is only one data track on a multi-session CD,
> that's all that is required. The CD player can read the audio tracks from
> the other sessions, and so can the [windows] file manager, but they are
> displayed as being on the same drive letter.
>
> I don't know about ZIP disks and such, but you cannot partition a floppy
> either. FDISK (or any OS's partitioning software that I am aware of) only
> works on fixed disks.
>
> Windows first assigns drive letters (besides a and b) first to primary
> partitions on all fixed drives, then to logical drives within extended
> partitions; and finally to removable drives and CD-ROMs. You can easily add
> a hard drive without shaking things up if you do a little planning.
>
> But then, adding storage space to a unix system is much more flexible,
> because you can apply additional storage space precisely where it's needed.
>
> -- Rich C.
> "Great minds discuss ideas.
> Average minds discuss events.
> Small minds discuss people."
>
> > --
> > Sam Morris
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > ...7/6/00: 3rd installation of Windows since March took 6h30m, and that's
> > without a working modem...
> > ...you can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers...
> >
>
> I'd rather bury it with you...........
What's wronk with macs? They're *fine* once you install *nix and put in
a 3 button mouse ;-)
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:15:15 +0100
> Adaptec Toast (CD burning utility on the Mac) lets you burn as many
> separate partitions (Toast calls them "Sessions") as you want, as long as
> the sum total of the data stored is less than or equal to 650 megs. Also,
> all of the Mac OS X CDs came with two partitions, one HFS+ and UFS (which
> was where most of the installer program was stored.) Don't ask me how
> they did it, but that's how the CDs for both Mac OS X Server and the
> Developers Previews are set up.
>
The ultimate "how the fsck did they do that?!?" was on a 5.25' disk,
half formatted at 40 track and the other half formatted 80 track. How in
$DEITY's name did they do that?
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:19:16 +0100
David wrote:
>
> "Lawrence DčOliveiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Which is the best system for dealing with filesystem volumes?
> >
> > a) Drive letters (all versions of Windows OT and NT, including Windows
> > 2000).
> > Pros: You got to be kidding.
> > Cons: They reaassign themselves at the slightest excuse; add a new
> > drive, and all bets are off as to which of your existing drive letter
> > assignments will stay the same.
> > Verdict: Stupid 1970s way of doing things that should be ashamed to be
> > still showing itself in the 21st century.
> >
> > b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
>
> Windows 2000 supports mount points.
See? windows is slowly and painfully becoming UNIX. What next?
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:25:58 +0100
Most GNU utilities have no limit on input sized, whereas counterparts in
commercial OS do (or had until recently)
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Terry Murphy Demonstrates Bald-Faced Lying -was- Open Source Programmers
Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:39:28 +0100
> Although the core GNU tools, the Linux kernel, Apache, and the X window
> system are of reasonably high quality, often exceeding their commercial
> counterparts, this says nothing about open source at large. These are the
> open source success stories which make up the bulk of the headlines. But
> they only represent about 1% of the code out there.
They are the most frequently used. there may well be a lot of dross out
there, but it's not used much.
There are millions of lines of closed source windows shareware out there
of appauling quality but that does not mean all windows coded things is
bad.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:39:59 -0400
Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
>
> It's only a computer.
>
> That's all I have to say.
That depends. On COLA, whose existence is for the taking of sides for
Linux, it make sense. Advocating a community developed product, which is
free, makes sense. Advocating a poorly developed, closed source,
proprietary set of (and I use this term loosely) operating systems, from
the largest software company in the world, with billions for marketing,
on the other hand does not make sense.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
