Linux-Advocacy Digest #434, Volume #27 Mon, 3 Jul 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not ready.)
(Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm (Aaron
Kulkis)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Lying documentation TAR AND FEATHER 'EM (Re: I'm Ready!) (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: My Linux Adventure (Re: I'm Ready!) (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: UNIX/Linux and DNA (Oliver Baker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not
ready.)
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 03:29:52 GMT
"Gonzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, but even some Winmodems have Linmodem drivers.
They still hog CPU time. Modems are cheaper than CPUs,
last I knew. Saving money by getting a cheaper modem
that uses up CPU resources seems backwards and bizarre
to me. Next we'll save money on hard drive space by
using a RAM Disk and making it persistent by never
shutting down, using UPS and a generator in case of
power failure. That's a more extreme example, but
it's the same kind of reasoning.
Get a modem with hardware flow control. Even if
it's a little old, a 33.6 modem can keep up with
standard residential phone lines anyhow, at least
around here.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 2 Jul 2000 22:21:33 -0500
In article <diI75.2914$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >That seems consistant with your "Unix good/not Unix evil" approach;
>> >the TCP/IP stack conforms to Unix's, so its good. MSCHAP
>> >doesn't, so its evil.
>>
>> Things that interoperate are good, things designed to break
>> other products are evil.
>
>MSCHAP doesn't break anything.
Beg your pardon?
>> MSCHAP broke every existing dialup service,
>
>No, it didn't. Not adhering to the protocols you
>would have them adhere to is not the same
>thing as "breaking" anything.
Please name one vendor of dial-up terminal servers that
was not forced to re-write their firmware or go
out of business.
>> most of which were done in dedicated
>> hardware from a large number of vendors in spite of
>> your repeated meaningless references to unix.
>
>I don't think it's meaningless; you have been
>very consistant about your standards: Unix is
>good, non-Unix is evil. Unix is good even if it
>isn't implemented by AT&T.
Standard protocols are good, what is running them
on the other end becomes irrelevant.
>> It is MS that shows this consistent behavior. I am
>> just observing.
>
>Are you saying you judge MS by a different standard
>than others, then?
Yes, because of their sheer size. If anyone other
than MS had delivered a client with MSCHAP, it could
have been universally ignored.
>[snip]
>> So implement all the standards you need. Or get the standards
>> updated if you have invented some new concept they don't already
>> handle.
>
>I prefer the normal model of proprietary software- just implement
>it and try to sell it. Let the market decide.
That is fine if you have several vendors competing on an equal
footing. We don't and you know it.
>I don't think the central-planning approach is a good one. I think
>I can point to the difficulties the standards-dominated Unix world
>has had keeping up with everyone else as evidence for this.
What difficulties? They've been sending email world wide long
before MS even thought about their silly product that was
based on file sharing.
>[snip]
>> >> Care to count the bodies among the ones that trusted MS?
>> >
>> >And yet they just keep lining up.
>>
>> Yes, monopolies have a way of taking away your choices.
>
>I suppose they would, if we hadn't debased the term
>"monopoly" beyond all recognition.
I recognize it just fine.
>[snip]
>> >You've shown that AT&T was prohibited from expanding into
>> >computers because of their monopoly on phones, even
>> >though they had not in fact leveraged their monopoly to do so.
>> The reasoning was that having
>> end-to-end control of data would wrongfully leverage the existing
>> communications line monopoly.
>
>That "reasoning" doesn't seem to involve any, well, reasoning.
>
>*How* would they leverage their telephone monopoly to
>dominate any part of the computer industry?
Ummm, let me guess... They could make it difficult to
use competing equipment... or as you like to describe
it, 'improve' theirs so it only works right with itself.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 2 Jul 2000 22:28:54 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > Yes, please tell us why you think it will harm consumers if
>> > the operating system company actually has to cooperate with
>> > an outside applications company?
>>
>> They do that now; it doesn't seem to be harming consumers.
>
>MS claims cooperating with ISVs harms consumers becasue MS cannot
>innovate. The DOJ claims MS does not cooperate and that leverage harms
>consumers. Why are you so poorly informed that you'd argue against one
>of the few points where the DOJ and MS agree -- MS doesn't cooperate!
Perhaps he should check with WordPerfect, Lotus, IBM, or maybe
Sun about how well they cooperate with outside companies. And
what happened to visio?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:05:59 -0400
Cihl wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > Cihl wrote:
> > >
> > > Laura Goodwin wrote:
> > >
> > > [snipped loads of stuff about ideal cheap Linux box]
> > >
> > > Lemme take a crack at this one.
> > >
> > > Motherboard:
> > > Anything with an Intel-chipset is perfect. Others work well, too, but
> > > i'd test it first, like VIA-chipsets for example.
> >
> > Via works well for me
>
> Really? Any arguments about lack of support get outdated as i type
> them.
> It must be a Linux thing.
>
> > >
> > > CPU:
> > > Anything will do. For price, i'd choose a Celeron.
> >
> > K6's are typically 50% less for the same clock speed AND have more
> > on-chip cache, which can have even more influence on performance
> > than clock speed.
>
> AMD is ok. Watch out for the K6-3D, though. Some stores have taken it
> out, because it would consistently slow down after about half an hour.
As this machine is going to be used for learning database engines,
it will be upgraded to a K7 in about 18 months. I figure that
the 800 MHz chips should be running about $100 by then.
>
> --
> ¨I live!¨
> ¨I hunger!¨
> ¨Run, coward!¨
> -- The Sinistar
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:07:31 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> Unfortunately, they [UPSs] are rather pricy friends when you are
> >> dealing with 10 or so machines
>
> >Here's what you do.
>
> >Open it up...you will find a 12.7V lead-acid batter inside (probably
> >a "motorcycle" battery.
>
> >Now....buy a couple of car batteries...and put them in parallel with
> >the motorcycle battery.
>
> Uhm, capacity isn't a problem --- most power outages are 1 to 2 seconds.
> But total power output is, and I would be very reluctant to attach 1kW worth
> of computers to a 300W UPS.... When those thyristors blow, bad things
> can happen ;-)
OK, Plug a 1500 W hairdryer into it, and see what happens.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lying documentation TAR AND FEATHER 'EM (Re: I'm Ready!)
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:08:55 -0400
Laura Goodwin wrote:
>
> Steve Mading wrote:
> >
> > Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : Another $0.02 worth: "Soundblaster compatible" is not a reliable indicator
> > : of Linux compatibility. It often means "Soundblaster compatible if you run
> > : our driver which, oh by the way, only works with Windows."
> >
> > Or in other words, "Our card isn't compatable with the Soundblaster
> > card in the slightest. Our driver, on the other hand, is compatable
> > with the driver for the Soundblaster card." Computer hardware needs
> > more truth in advertising.
>
> Thank you! :::high five::: that is one of my biggest complaints is that
> there is too much flat-out fraud in software and hardware packaging and
> documentation! I can handle the truth! All I want is the TRUTH, damn
> it!
But then you wouldn't buy their lousy products.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 3 Jul 2000 00:08:44 -0500
In article <7iI75.2910$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >Not at all, there are way to cope with multiple protocols; using
>> >them gives you flexibility.
>>
>> Exactly - and none of them should involve having to make
>> changes on the other end of the wire.
>
>Why not?
Because doing so takes away your choice of ever using anything
(a) not under your control or (b) not from a vendor that
happens to match.
>> >Sure, but you *would* force MS to use Unix protocols
>> >if you *could*. No?
>>
>> Force is a strong word, and standard protocols have
>> nothing to do with unix, so you are being as misleading
>> as possible here
>
>I don't think I am; I think that it's *Unix* protocols you favor,
>regardless of 'standardization'; there is as I've mentioned
>a standards body for COM, but I don't see you complaining
>about Unix's vendors failure to support it.
DCOM might make sense as a standard, but it has to compete
head to head with pre-existing ones like CORBA and I
don't see it winning. If there were a free reference
library it might have a chance.
>>. But, as I've said before, computer
>> files and networking have become at least as significant
>> as communications equipment when the wire standards
>> were established for interconnecting equipment. So
>> I'd consider it perfectly reasonable to have similar
>> standards for computer formats and protocols for the same
>> reasons.
>
>You haven't given a reason to want to halt progress; you've
>just asserted that its like telephones somehow.
It is like telephones in that much of the value of my instance
comes from it's ability to interoperate with any other, regardless
of the vendor. And it doesn't halt progress, it allows it.
>I don't see that it *is* like telephones, and I don't see why
>that should mean halting progress.
It doesn't and never has halted progress.
>> My real complaint about IE is that it puts non-standard HTML
>> extensions on a majority of desktops, encouraging designers
>> to use them in ways that break standards-conforming software.
>
>Sort of like Netscape, then?
No, Netscape didn't claim to be inseperable from the OS, but
your point is correct. Without competition, Netscape would
have been a problem. Without competition, IE *is* a problem.
>> I'll leave the legal points to the lawyers. This repeating
>> pattern of exploiting their market share to influence things
>> that cause trouble for users of competing products is
>> a problem for me regardless of the law.
>
>I don't think they do cause trouble for users of competing
>products; so far I haven't seen an example of this given.
Just incredible... I've posted many, they are in the courts
over others and you "haven't seen an example".
>[snip]
>> How do I go about removing the web pages that (accidentally or
>> otherwise) only work correctly with IE from the rest of the
>> world?
>
>You don't. You've no right to take IE away from the rest
>of us, just because you don't like it.
Who said anything about taking IE away. I want to take
away the non-HTML that people accidentally produce using
MS tools.
>> I have put a great deal of effort to keep them
>> off the web servers I manage and understand how difficult
>> it is if you use any of Microsoft's tools.
>
>Why should you do this?
People should be able to view web pages with the browser of
their choice even if someone innocently used an MS product
to produce it.
>[snip]
>> >Well, that's true. But much Unix software does not
>> >strictly adhere to the POSIX standard at all- it uses
>> >X to produce a GUI, and this goes beyond POSIX.
>>
>> If you have posix and sockets, you can have X without
>> any extra requirements.
>
>Not so. Just spewing an X protocol stream into an
>arbitrary socket is useless; you need an X server to
>do anything.
I already have an X server.
>And you can't implement an X server with POSIX alone.
The X server implementation doesn't have to be portable,
nor does it have to be on the machine where the program
runs or anything resembling the same OS.
>[snip]
>> >> Timed operations,
>> >
>> >What's this?
>>
>> I guess 'scheduled' would have been a better term.
>> Cron is a normal part of the unix/linux environment. Anything
>> that can run unattended can be run automatically at user
>> specified intervals. There is also the 'at' command for
>> one-shot runs at a specific time.
>
>Both Windows 98 and NT/2000 have schedulers, too.
But GUI based programs aren't easily automated. Command
driven programs generally take the same commands when
run non-interactively as when interactively.
>[snip]
>> >I don't think most of the file transfers, charts and "assorted
>> >other things" really can be so easily scripted; they vary
>> >over time too much.
>>
>> Perhaps the things individuals do are more whimsical, but
>> businesses often provide certain data in certain ways at
>> specific times. I do anyway...
>
>Yes; and scripting provides a way to program the computer
>to handle well known tasks automatically.
>
>It's programming, and you can do it in Windows too. Most
>Windows users lack the skills to do it, though.
Windows programs may have some scripting language, but
making it different than normal operation makes it require
a different set of skills to use.
>> >[snip]
>> The ancient uucp example was the opposite, though. In that
>> case the hardware was generic and the software was tied
>> to specific models from the same vendor, but it produced
>> the same effect until I got it changed.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here. The software depended
>on a particular modem protocol and the modem didn't follow
>it; surely *neither* was "generic"?
The hardware it supported correctly used two serial ports
per modem. One for the data, one for the dialer - a scheme
used before smartmodems that took dialing commands on the
data port became popular. It did also accomodate using
user-supplied expect/send chat scripts, but the problem
was that it would not open the port unless the modem
carrier detect lead was already up (the usual mode for
unix waiting for inbound calls). However, if you configured
the modem to hold CD up all the time you couldn't tell when
a call disconnected.
>Drivers would solve this problem.
As did a change in the open mode. This is strictly a
user-level program and the OS already provided the
needed function.
>[snip]
>> >How low bandwidth is low? I use RAS over 28.8 modems
>> >regularly, and greatly prefer it to telnet.
>>
>> RAS is a transport layer and doesn't have much to do
>> with telnet's application layer that would happily run
>> over your RAS connection if it supplies TCP and you
>> have a suitable server.
>
>Admittedly; but you know what I mean: with a (slow!) remote
>network connection, I don't need to be restricted to telnet.
If you have decent character based programs on the other end,
using telnet isn't a restriction.
>> But for a reasonable comparison
>> of capabilities, try doing a non-indexed search of a
>> huge database with a local PC program accessing the remote
>> file over RAS.
>
>That's not a reasonable comparison; that's being deliberately
>stupid.
There is generally no way to know ahead of time that what
you are going to try to run is stupid when you use local
programs accessing remote files over a slow link.
>[snip]
>> Mostly it is just different, and the market share makes
>> people not pay attention to the differences so they
>> unintentionally break the competitors product by using
>> the non-standard changes.
>
>You do keep saying this. And I keep not believing you.
That doesn't make it any less true.
>[snip]
>So, you're saying that because your software is so much less
>user-friendly than Microsoft, Microsoft is somehow obliged
>to provide tools that make it as easy to set up and use
>as their own?
I'm saying that MS could easily provide you with a telnet
that works according to current standards. The fact that
they don't fits the pattern that they are not interested
in interoperating with anything else.
>I don't think MS thinks its in their interest to do that; if your
>software is some awful telnet-based character driver thing,
>MS software will certainly look good, and MS isn't going
>to change it.
But they do change it. The cursor positioning doesn't work
because they lie in the terminal type negotition claiming
to be ansi when they aren't, and they don't inform the
other end on a window resize.
>What boggles my mind is that you think they *should*.
I suppose it is far-fetched to expect them to sell
something that works correctly.
>[snip]
>> but in the case of HTML editors that produce stuff that
>> is not HTML and java compilers that produce something other
>> than java I don't see much difference.
>
>You could, at most, claim that MS's product is broken, not
>that it breaks other people's.
If I thought it was accidental I would claim it was broken,
but you don't go to court to defend your right to continue
to produce something that is accidentally broken. They
know very well why they want to continue to break other
interoperability with other vendor's products.
>> Not if it appears to work between your server and your
>> client, but is broken when you use the other guy's.
>
>It would seem to me that that isn't the case I was talking
>about; I meant things like MS's telnet, which is no better
>when pointed at an NT server than at a Unix one.
Is there a lot of stuff on NT that needs ansi terminal
control to work?
>[snip]
>> Hmmm, what OS isn't weak at interoperating with undocumented
>> and rapidly changing protocols?
>
>Microsoft's. :D
>
>Really, you can change your protocol every second tuesday
>without any serious problem; you need only distribute a new
>plug in with your new protocol.
If you have to replace a component on every client to
make it work right, why not just replace the whole thing
with one that works in the first place?
>> Changing components on every machine has nothing to
>> do with interoperating. Why do you keep confusing the
>> two?
>
>Plug ins are a means of interoperating; I was just outlining
>why it's a *better* means (in my view) than trying to get
>everyone to use the same protocol everywhere.
And your source of plug ins for an assortment of non-Intel
CPU's and non-Microsoft OS's would be???
>> When an unmodified windows client can interoperate with a
>> a non-Microsoft version of Active Directory services, or an
>> equivalent to the Kerberos-domain-controller, we can talk
>> about interoperability.
>
>They can. They come with plug-ins for other peoples networks;
>maybe not *yours*, but they do support NetWare and Windows
>2000 has added support for vanilla Kerberos, though vanilla
>Kerberos doesn't offer the same features Active Directory does.
That's not even close to what I said.
>[snip]
>> >You can only do this is the standards already support the feature
>> >you want.
>>
>> Yes, standards evolve to provide the features you want.
>
>This does not help; aside from being way too slow to keep up
>with more normal software development, this does nothing
>to upgrade your existing computers- the ones you insist you
>can't change in order to accomodate a new machine.
I don't understand what you mean here. SMTP has changed
dramatically over the years yet there has never been
a version that would not continue to work with older
versions. Please show how Microsoft's mail products
have been more flexible across all versions.
>[snip]
>> >Copy the source and recompile works only between very
>> >closely related OSes, like the different Unixes and the
>> >different Windows.
>>
>> Then why did we have the misleading claims about subsystems when
>> NT came out?
>
>What misleading claims are those?
The posix subsystem was supposed to run all your old unix
programs. 'Better unix than unix', etc.
>[snip]
>The Open Group, the same folks you brought you Motif!
>
>Okay, I don't think that's so promising either.
>Here's the web page for this thing:
>
>http://www.opengroup.org/comsource/
>
>Why isn't this an open standard? Is it just the
>lack of design-by-committee?
What's open about it? I suspect it will have the
same fate Motif would have had if it had been
offered commercially after better alternatives
already existed with free implementations.
>> >[snip]
>> Of course. But things that claim to generate HTML should
>> generate standards-conforming HTML. Things that compile
>> java should generate real java. Things that offer LDAP
>> address-book service should make it as handy to use as
>> exchange address-book service.
>
>Do you suppose these three things are equivalent?
Yes.
>".. should generate standard-conforming HTML" just amounts
>to "no new features- it makes MS's competitors look bad"
It makes correctly working browsers look bad. A user
no longer has the choice of continuing to use these other
correctly working browsers.
>"...should generate real java" is nonsensicle; Java
>compilers emit .class files, or executables, or something,
>not more Java.
It fails to work under correctly operating JVM's. A user
can no longer choose to use those JVM's.
>"...should make it as handy to use as exchange address-book
>services" is just weird; I don't know if it means that MS shouldn't
>try to go beyond what LDAP offeers, or that they should
>kludge LDAP to do what they want.
It is a lookup and doen't need a kludge. While a user can
still use LDAP instead of exchange, it is unecessarily
inconvenient.
[snip]
g++
>> The difference
>> is that they don't have enough market share to get people
>> to use the non-standard parts accidentally
>
>They *don't*?
>
>Surely they dominance in some markets- like the Linux
>compiler market- is just overwhelming.
And how does this compare to the number of seats using
visual c++? Or encouraged to use MFC?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My Linux Adventure (Re: I'm Ready!)
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:11:15 -0400
Laura Goodwin wrote:
>
> CAPTAIN'S LOG, supplemental:
>
> I have successfully partitioned, formatted, and loaded Linux (Definite
> 7.0) onto my second hard drive, survived the install process (a rough
> passage) and have booted successfully into this fascinating new world.
>
> It looks somewhat familiar, this KDE GUI landscape, but also weirdly
> alien at 16 colors, 600x400. And it's quiet...too quiet. In fact
> there's no sound at all, except that of my own breathing, and the
> clatter of my keys.
>
> I was told there would be a Netscape transport station here, but I don't
> see it. Without my trusty Windows drivers loaded and devices fully
Your drivers were already loaded.....a LONG, LONG, time ago...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Oliver Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: UNIX/Linux and DNA
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 05:16:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> A little info on how Unix and Linux helped map human DNA...
>
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1104919
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
That article doesn't lead me to think there's a whole lot of Linux going
on at the Sanger Center. However, Incyte Genomics in the San Francisco
Bay Area has a Linux cluster made of 4-way Intel boxes that was at 2,200
CPUs in April and which they say they intend to double before the year
is out. Incyte is a competitor of Celera, the private company famous for
racing the public Human Genome Project. Incyte is not out to sequence
the chromosomes in their entirety--just the small percentage of the
total DNA that is genes (which they collect by "reverse transcribing"
RNA purified from human cells).
(I'm a journalist writing a story about Incyte's cluster. My impression,
though I'm still digging around, is that Linux is not much used in
"bioinformatics" just yet, but that a lot of instituions are looking
into it--and I suppose Incyte's choice will push things in that
direction. Solaris/Unix/Tru64 are definitely all over the place.)
- Oliver Baker
.
.
.
.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
