Linux-Advocacy Digest #840, Volume #27 Fri, 21 Jul 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k ("Spud")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Spud")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("KLH")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:53:13 -0700
[snips]
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l7ei4$vte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> However, Windows 98 runs quite nicely on a Pentium 200, with 32 meg
of
> RAM, a 4 gig HD, cheap sound, cheap video, Windows 98, and Works -
for
> about $400.
>
> Linux runs on a Pentium 90, with 16 meg of RAM, a 2 gig HD, cheap
sound,
> cheap video, Linux, and one of 3 office suites - for about $250.
Fine; find me a shipping machine from a volume commercial vendor -
Future Shop, Computer City, etc - that comes in such a configuration.
Not some backyard yokel selling third-hand machines, new machines with
full warranties and the works.
Whoops, can't do it? Okay, so the _minimum_ machine you're likely
going to be able to buy off the shelf is about comparable to the one I
listed. So, we add $100 for some extra RAM and... whoops, those 3-5
times costs vanish.
By this logic, I could say that Linux's hardware requirements are 3-5
times that of DOS... because DOS will run on an 8086 with < 1Mb RAM,
and you can probably throw an entire working machine together from
scrap dealer parts for about $50. Ooh, look, Linux is *five times* as
expensive, just in hardware - guess Linux sucks.
It's a bizarre and silly argument - no matter which way it's sliced.
> No. Linux BIGGEST problem is that it is competing against a system
> which is preinstalled by the OEMs
Wouldn't know about that; I've never bought a machine (other than a
second-hand XT way back when that had DOS 3.3 installed) with a
preinstalled OS. I've bought plenty of machines, but never one with a
preinstalled OS.
> Furthermore, any reinstallation of either Windows 95, Windows 98, or
> Windows 2000 will result in wiping of the Master boot record,
> repartitioning of the hard drive (wiping out the Linux partition),
and
> setting the C: drive as the boot partition. This means that Linux
> must be restarted and LILO needs to be reinstalled on the root
> partition and Windows has to be fooled into thinking that the Linux
> root partition is the boot partition - and all this must be done
from
> either a floppy or from Windows.
Ah, I see. "Someone else's OS doesn't go out of its way to make sure
*our* OS is happy." Umm... so?
> IBM, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, Micron, and the other "Top 20" are
> offering lines of preinstalled Linux workstations, many of which
> include support for Wine which supports many windows 3.1 and
> Windows 95 applications. Microsoft, of course is "encouraging"
> software vendors to exclude this technology with APIs not available
> on Windows 95 (DCOM, MSMQ, MTS) and peripherals not available on
> Windows 95 (USB, DVD-ROM).
Perhaps... but 95 is, let's face it, outdated. 98 supports USB just
fine, thanks. Oh, Wine doesn't do USB? Well, so? It's not as if
Microsoft is selling Wine, so why should they play that game? Talk to
the folks who develop Wine... if they can't deliver the technologies
you need, well, Windows can. If they can deliver it, what's your
point?
> > Example: I use Office 2000. What has Linux got to
> > offer that allows me to maintain all my existing O2K documents -
> > including all the scripting and suchlike behind them?
>
> You're asking the wrong question. What you have in you O2K
documents
> is information, information you would like to publish, archive,
> distribute, print, display, and retrieve. O2K saves documents in a
> default format which is neither efficient (uses a great deal of
> storage), secure (microviruses, activeX viruses, vbscript viruses,
> embedded ole viruses...), nor managable (not practically searchable,
> archivable, displayable to non-O2K systems...). In effect, you have
> hundreds, perhaps thousands of documents which you can't publish
> or distribute (because of the viruses), you can't display them
without
> very expensive equipment, and you can't retrieve them from a very
large
> searchable archive (using search by content).
Let's take these in order.
>format which is neither efficient (uses a great deal of> storage)
Can actually store in about 2 dozen formats, with varying degrees of
size and features.
>secure (microviruses, activeX viruses, vbscript viruses, embedded ole
viruses...)
If you don't embed a virus, you can certainly save the document
without them. Why simply saving a document would magically cause it
to become virus-ridden, I'm not sure... if you're really that paranoid
about it, save as RTF.
>not practically searchable
Funny... I just saved an office document, told "search" to look for
any documents in the folder which contain the word "release" and
voila! Got one - in Word 2K native format. I can search 'em, even if
you can't.
>archivable,
"Archivable"? InfoZip had no problem with this document. I can also
readily burn it to CD for my archives, store it to tape for backups...
not sure what the issue here is.
>displayable to non-O2K systems.
No? The last version of WordPerfect I used couldn't be viewed on
other systems... unless you had appropriate translators for your
program. Corel Draw doesn't seem particularly suited to that sort of
thing, either. Nor do any of the CAD programs I've used. Nor do....
Oddly enough, most of these - including all versions of Office I've
ever seen - offer other formats you can export to if you need to send
the data to incompatable platforms. Can't do it in the native format?
Whoopee.
>can't publish or distribute (because of the viruses)
No such issue; we publish and distribute Office documents all around
the enterprise on a regular basis.
>can't display them without very expensive equipment
Expensive? Oh, right; the $1,000 machine we were talking about
earlier, the bottom end of the currently shipping machines scale.
Okay, so it's not a bottom-feeder system, but it's hardly "very
expensive".
>you can't retrieve them from a very large searchable archive
Depends how one defines "archive", doesn't it? Oh, sure, you can't
stuff 'em into a tarball and expect to grep it... but let's get
realistic here, that's old-school.
>You can print them,
> but you can't publish them in a format that can be printed by
others.
What format would you like? RTF? Word Perfect 5.0? HTML? ASCII
Text?
> Put simply, you must either purchase very expensive hardware and
> software for every person you intend to publish this document to,
> including everyone they wish to publish their documents to.
Or you buy a clue. If you're an enterprise, the cost of hardware and
software is completely insignificant in the first place... and if you
want to save a few bucks, you bulk-purchase your hardware and you buy
*licenses* for the software - at a much lower price.
Bulk-buying machines alone can more than overcome the cost of the
software. Example: I can buy one machine for $1700, or 50 of them for
$1400 a piece, or 150 of them for $1200 a piece. If I'm buying for an
enterprise, I'll buy 150 of them, saving $500 a pop... and that $500
is, quite likely, enough to either completely or at least mostly pay
for the licenses for the common software I need. Obviously that's not
going to include *all* the software, but that's not the point, is it?
> If you
> have 1000 employees, you'll need to pay about $10 million every 2
> years to support the routine upgrades (just because everybody
That's $1000 per machine per year. Our office schedules $300 per
machine per year, and has been cutting that *back*. Why? Because
having initially invested in halfway decent machines (PIII-300's w
10Gb drives as the base), 90% of the upgrading costs are dropping
extra RAM in. Since there's no need to drop in another 128Mb of RAM
every year, the $300 per machine budget is overkill.
Oh, wait, how do we do it for less than $300, when you claim it costs
$1000 or more? Well, first, we aren't bottom-feeders; we don't buy
complete crap and replace it with more complete crap that has to be
completely replaced every year. Second, thanks to Windows networking
support, we can greatly reduce per-machine storage requirements...
while increasing overall reliability *and* reducing costs. Contact a
competent network administrator if the mechanisms behind that aren't
obvious.
Could you do the same under Linux? Presumably. Still, you've not
really supported your side of things, especially in terms of costing,
very well. Case in point; with 1000 employees, and an average salary
of, say, $45,000 a year, every 2 years you'll pay $90,000,000 in wages
alone... but with sensible machine policies, you'll pay about $600,000
for the same period for the client PCs. Hardly the thing that's going
to bankrupt you.
> gets Windows 2000 and Office 2000 this year doesn't mean that
> Microsoft won't be coming up with more "upgrades" (designed to
> force you into buying more hardware
Why would MS want to force you into buying more hardware? Are they
getting kickbacks from Kingston Memory Systems, Quantum and Maxtor?
> You can purchase new machines, paying $5000 to $10,000 in labor,
> hardware, and software costs to back-up existing systems,
Yeesh... $5,000 in labour for *what*? Setting up new systems?
Pathetic. If it takes you more than an hour to roll out a new
machine, you're doing something wrong. If you can't roll out a dozen
of them at a time, you're doing something wrong. And if you *need* to
roll out a dozen at a time just to upgrade, you've done something
wrong in your initial purchasing... so don't blame someone else for
incompetent business decisions on your part.
> with new systems, and recover back-up data into the existing
systems.
Oh, BTW, backing up and restoring existing systems isn't an issue.
You *are* aware of how to manage large-scale networks, right? Hint:
it's a lot cheaper and easier to drop a high-speed LAN in with a
redundant server automatially backing up every night, than to fart
around with per-PC data storage. If your users are storing things
locally to their PCs, make it company policy that it is only *their*
data, their personal data; company data gets stored on the network,
where it's safe from drive crashes, gets backed up, and doesn't *need*
to be restored on a per-PC basis.
> If you want to follow the "rush", you'll pay the highest possible
> price (around $10K) - and then you'll have to cut bonuses, raises,
> and incentives by an average of $10,000 per employee. The Microsoft
> lovers will be thrilled to get this new hardware (at everyone else's
> expense), and most of the rest of the company will just figure it's
> one more piece of software to learn.
Don't know where you get any of this. It all sounds like extremely
incompetent management and roll-out policies; you should be discussing
with management how to get a competent network administrator in, not
complaining about Microsoft. From the descriptions you're offering, a
decent netadmin would save you at least 5 million a year... which I
think will more than pay for all of your software licenses, with
enough left over for a company party.
> > "Windows-only hardware"? How do you manage that? As far as I can
> > see, if you could write a Linux driver for a given piece of
hardware,
> > you could use it under Linux. If hardware vendors aren't
providing
> > Linux drivers, there may be a reason for it... perhaps a
perception -
> > correct or not - that Linux is but a bit player, not worth the
effort.
>
> You create a proprietary protocol, like DVD-CSS,
Ah, so you create Windows protocols, not hardware. Okay... then the
vendors have the choice of adopting that protocol or rejecting it.
It's been done before - look at IBM and MCA, when the rest of the
world told them to take a flying leap. (Okay, MCA isn't a protocol,
but the principle applies.)
> then you make everyone
> sign an agreement
At gunpoint? No, you don't _make_ anyone do _anything_. You offer
them the rights to use a protocol, as long as they're willing not to
disclose its operations, perhaps, but that's another matter. If the
vendors really thought Linux and BeOS and suchlike were worth the
effort, they'd reject proprietary protocols and adopt or establish
open ones. If you have a case to make here, it's either against
Linux for it's (real or perceived) lack of popularity, or at the
hardware vendors for adopting closed protocols. Take it up with them.
> > To be honest, I'm not sure they care about Linux... at least not
in
> > terms of where Linux is today.
>
> Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are acutely aware of Linux. It scares
> the daylights out of them.
Really? You've asked them, personally? I trust you have recordings.
> Windows 95 was delayed nearly a year
...for various reasons, one of which might well include the one you
claim.
> (which increased the cost of peripherals by about $20 each) using
Yet I can get a 10Mbit PnP network adapter for $17, locally.
According to you, without PnP, the vendor would actually have to pay
me $3 for every one I took. Sorry, don't buy it.
> a protocol which was contracturally protected from disclosure to
> the Linux community.
As well as anyone else, one would suspect.
> > Where Linux will be in 2-3 years
> > depends on a lot of things,
>
> Keep in mind that we're really talking Linux/UNIX.
Somehow I suspect that the commercial Unix variants regard Linux as
_at best_ a competitor.
> The
> combination of Linux and UNIX as a solution that allows low cost
> development, prototyping, and even mid-tier systems under Linux
> that can easily be converted to BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP_UX, and
> others.
Yeah, but hiring a netadmin with a clue would also save you big
bucks... at least, the way you've describe purchasing and maintenance
is an absolute nightmare... and one totally unnecessary in the Windows
world. Maybe Linux forces you into that sort of nonsense, but I'd be
very surprised if it did. Step 1: shoot your existing net admin.
Step 2: Hire one with a clue. Step 3: Get back to us in a year or
two with the results.
> We're also talking Open Source vs
Whoopee.
If I want a programmer to write an application, I want him to write
the _application_, not fart around custom tailoring OS code. If I
hire a network admin, it's to administer the network, not redo OS
code. If I hire documentation people, clerical staff, accountants,
managerial staff, it's all to do jobs having exactly nothing to do
with farting around with OS code. So what does having an open-source
OS buy me? Sweet f a, unless I'm an OS geek. Fine, if I'm an OS
geek, I'll go work for Microsoft, or Be, or RedHat.
> Linux has already done a remarkably good job of
> creating a "user desktop" appliance in remarkably
> short time.
I've used it; it's a joke. Oh, it's a *hell* of a lot better than it
was a couple years back... but it's got a hell of a long way to go,
especially considering the alternatives.
> by many to be a viable alternative to Windows. Many
> people actually prefer Linux because it is so much more
> flexible, reliable, secure, and stable.
Yes, many do... but look at who they are. Did your folks buy a
computer? Was it a Linux box? Probably not. Check most of the
offices around you; do they buy machines? Are they usually Linux
machines? Probably not.
What you find is lots of so-called "power users" going for Linux, for
those reasons. Sure, no argument, it *does* have advantages.
However, until it's as easy for everyone in the office to use as
Windows, and that includes interoperability with the other offices in
the organization, which are probably already Windows boxes, well,
sorry.
> > - which means, among other things,
> > compatability with existing document formats,
>
> Linux provides much better compliance with existing IETF standards.
Than Windows? Ooh... you mean Amaya, which is presumably about as
compliant as you can get, magically breaks when you use it's Windows
version?
You're confusing a platform with a company with an application.
> Linux supports a number of formats and standards that can be easily
> implemented on Micrsoft Windows (95,98,NT, & 2000).
Sure - if anyone in the Windows world cares. Do they? If not, then
Linux has two choices: ignore the existing installed base of Windows
machines, and hope it can take over anyway, or adapt to them. Of the
two, the latter strategy would be the more sensible... but considering
the common anti-MS views I see in the Linux community, I suspect it's
the least likely to actually be applied meaningfully.
> Actually, KDE combined with GNOME and Java have created a user
> oriented environment that offers features Windows can't even
approach.
Indeed. Glacially slow interfaces, for one thing. I had KDE and
GNOME on this box not too long ago (about 2 months now) and the system
claimed to have detected and supported my video card; it certainly
supported the higher-res and higher-colour modes, so one would suspect
it did, in fact, detect it. It was, however, almost unusably slow.
Windows, of course, is nice and zippy.
KDE _looks_ nice enough, it looks like it solves a lot of the
usability issues... but it has _got_ to do something about the speed.
Whether that's actually KDE, or someone else's graphics driver, I
don't know... nor do I really care; I want to use the machine, not
waste my time fiddling with it.
> The ability to access remote workstations and servers using GUI
> interfaces (application servers that offer XClient software).
Ooh. Can't get that out of the box with Windows, but there are
certainly X Servers available. Check Attachmate's KEA! X product, for
example.
Also look into TSE... funny, I can log into a Terminal Server with a
GUI client, run my programs, do my work. No, it's not X... but so
what? It's here, it works.
> They will rely on NDAs and non-compete contracts to prevent the
spread
> of Linux as much as possible,
Hmm... I sign an NDA with MS, and this somehow prevents Linux
spreading? What, the magic OS pixies start randomly deleting Linux
kernel code?
No, what happens is this: MS either develops or purchases some
technology to improve the usefulness of Windows. They roll it out,
but Linux has no counterpart. Therefore, this hinders Linux's ability
to spread... except that Linux could spend the money and develop a
compatible technology, couldn't they? Sure they could. But no, it's
better to complain that someone willing to spend money is bad for
expecting to be able to recoup that cost and even make a profit.
Ridiculous.
Isn't that the way with Linux, though? "We want everything for free,
even if someone else has to pay for it. Just because they spent big
bucks making or buying it, if they don't turn around and give it away
free, they're big bad meanines."
If that's your philosophy, fine, put your money where your mouth is -
*you* fund the development of compatible technologies, out of your own
pocket - then give them away, free. At least we'll see whether you
really do believe that these things should, in fact, be free, even if
you had to pay for the privilege of gaining control of them so you
could offer them free.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 21 Jul 2000 02:54:21 -0400
On 10 Jul 2000 15:20:27 -0700, Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is no way Windows could have done this. First of all, Linux
>would never render a computer unbootable because I reinstalled a
>driver.
But Linux wouldn't require you to reinstall the driver in the
first place, or any of that other crap you mentioned.
--
Microsoft Windows. Flaky and built to stay that way.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:01:27 -0700
[snips]
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> > Don't invoke it in the first place.
>
> >
> > Just don't log into the server at the console.
> >
>
> >
> > Choose not to log in at the console. Telnet in and use the CMD
CLI.
>
> None of these suggestions "disable" the GUI. It's still up, it's
just
> running on the login screen. How do you bring up NT in text mode?
It can be done, but the real question is... why do it? Or rather, why
do you care? At most you're talking maybe 2 megs, which will likely
be swapped out if you start getting resource starved anyway. Then
again, if your server is so resource starved that the overhead of the
GUI is an issue in the first place, then you predicted the server's
load poorly and consequently did a poor job of configuring it. Fix
your requirements, and the configurations to meet them, and the GUI
remains irrelevant - as it always has been.
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:57:08 -0700
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> KLH wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > KLH wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > mlw wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Iko wrote:
> > > > > > > A linux server is made in about 3 hours...even my girlfriend
can
> > > > > > > do the job..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh boy, do you have a lot to learn. Either you think poorly of
your
> > > > > > girlfriend or women generally. Either way, someone's sex has no
> > bearing
> > > > >
> > > > > Data processing is oftentimes best represented in the mind as
> > > > > 3+ dimensional processes. On the average, men's brains are MUCH
> > > > > more adept at this sort of thinking (in the same way as on the
> > > > > average, women's brain's are much more adept at acquiring and
> > > > > using linquistic skills)
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I find the differences between the thinking of men and
woman
> > > > similar to the differences between KDE and GNOME; not very
interesting
> > and
> > > > far too slight to really matter.
> > >
> > > Evidently, you are not well-read on the subject.
> > >
> > > Catch up, and get back to me.
> >
> > I *do* know there are many authors of books, editorials, and magazine
> > articles who love to dwell on the subject about the differences between
men
> > and women. Often this content is on the subject of dating, marriage, and
> > divorce. As interesting as this may be for some, it does not make it
> > significant. Men are *not* from Mars and Women are *not* from Venus,
rather
> > we are both from Earth; but the title of such a book shows how the
>
> And John Gray is an idiot.
>
> That's NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about peer-reviewed
> studies about the differences between male and female brains
>
>
>
> > differences are so exagerated. But a statistic I heard in class once was
> > that Men and Women are greater than 90% alike (sorry, I do not recall
the
> > exact percentage) .
> >
> > So attempting to classify a person's ability at linguistics or math
based
> > upon gender seems to be an act of futillity---or segregation.
> >
> > My feeling is that the trend of women not taking up occupations in
computers
> > is because of enviroment rather than any sort of inherent capacity.
> >
>
>
> Keep believing the politically correct line, and you'll never learn the
> truth.
If what you say is true, and I have no evidence to beleive otherwise, what
does it mean? Do I treat women differently than men? Do I say, "You know,
you're women so I have the advantage over you in computers" ?
That just doesn't seem right to me. That is why I choose the politcally
correct line.
But I must ask you, are the differences that vast that it matters? Does a
slight edge cause an inferiority in certain subjects? Or can everything
continue the way it is and we judge the differance smaller than what it
would take to really matter.
In another post, you mentioned "The Bell Curve". If I recall correctly, many
psycologists have disputed its findings, though that may have something to
do with its controversial nature. Also, doesn't that same book also show the
intelligence of Blacks to be less than Whites, and the intelligence of
Whites to be less than Asians?
Lets just say that we are all equal and be done with it.
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
Best Regards,
Kevin Holmes
"extrasolar"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
