Linux-Advocacy Digest #868, Volume #27 Sat, 22 Jul 00 05:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Mike")
Re: Microsoft (Loren Petrich)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Courageous)
Re: Microsoft (Loren Petrich)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Lennart Gahm")
I dream of Indrema.... (Loren Petrich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 07:09:54 GMT
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:12:07 GMT,
> Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8l8lo9$3lf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >Stratus (for one) is able to supply systems with availability of
> >> >99.9999%.
> >>
> >> No, they aren't. Or at least Status won't come out and say that they
can
> >> get downtime down to 30 seconds per year. 99.999% they say, which is
> >> 5 minutes per year. And they are not doing it on PCs, either, but
rather
> >> on HP/UX machines.
> >
> >Wrong, but I'll take some responsibility here. I pointed you to the index
> >page. You'd have to have followed a link through to their news page to
find
> >it:
> >
> >http://www.stratus.com/news/2000/2000417hw.htm
> >
> >They do claim 99.9999%, specifically with regard to their triple
redundancy
> >ftServer Windows 2000 machines.
> >
> >What the press release does not say is that the system _and_software_ are
> >that reliable, partly because they can't (having no control over the
> >software), and partly because they aren't. Nor does their claim include
> >things like monitors, which may not be so important if you're running a
> >database server, but if you're driving the displays in a war room, might
be
> >pretty damn critical. The issue that got this subthread started was
> >regarding PC hardware reliability. My intended point was that although
> >standard PC hardware may not be terribly reliable, there's nothing that
> >keeps you from developing reliable PC hardware.
>
> On their W2K solutions they say "99.999% hardware availability". On
> their HP-UX pages they say "99.999% uptime" You can see they trust
> HP-UX but not W2k.
Hardware availability and uptime are often used synonymously. Nonetheless,
you have a point. In their words:
"Continuum's robust architecture allows us to offer the strongest
availability guarantee in the industry. We guarantee 100% uptime on hardware
and system software; full details, customer responsibilities, and limited
exceptions are listed in a separate publication."
While I could argue, and be quite sure, that there is no such thing as a
100% uptime system, the important point here is that they are guaranteeing
both the hardware and the operating system.
It is worth noting that they don't trust HP-UX, per se. They guarantee
_compatibility_ with HP-UX. Elsewhere they make reference to a "hardened
HP-UX kernel." So, they don't trust HP-UX completely either, but we're
talking relative trust here, and in that sense, they stand behind HP-UX to a
higher degree than they do Win2k.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: 22 Jul 2000 07:34:13 GMT
In article <8kj9a7$h5t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Microsoft has worked very hard to kill nearly all other
>public PnP configurations. They killed SCSI before anyone
>had even heard of PnP. ...
Sorry, SCSI is alive and well -- I have two internal and three
external SCSI drives attached to my Macintosh clone. However, it has not
been nearly as big in PeeCee land; I think the reason is not M$ chicanery
but simply the lesser expense of IDE drivers. Which is why Apple has been
adopting IDE in some of its models.
>Today's "George Washington" fights much like his predecessor, as
>a guerilla, with his troops popping up from behind trees, ambushing
>the regiment, an the greener militia dropping back while the crack
>sharp-shooters fired accurate rifles dropping back to the bayonette
>equipped veterans.
And the original George Washington's opponent's troops had a
tendency to wear bright red coats. Which may look good in parades, but not
on the battlefield, where they advertise their wearers very strongly.
Which suggests certain analogies with some of M$'s software...
>The "George Washington" of the Internet deals with Microsoft
>from within the internet, providing inspiration to "troops"
>who go out and promote open source, Linux, and the proliferation
>of information that will disempower the Monopoly power of
>Microsoft. This is distinct from attempting to destroy Microsoft.
>The goal is merely to bring them to the point where they are
>willing to discontinue their offensive activities and allow us
>the liberty of making our own choices. The Continental Army
>didn't destroy England, they did however force them to withdraw
>to Canada.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 07:43:26 GMT
> get over me.
alt.romance surely did. You have an *obnoxious* signature, by the way.
C/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: 22 Jul 2000 07:42:53 GMT
In article <8l5pfu$p1d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It may backfire. More and more users are choosing Linux and are
>less tolarant of "Linux Hostile" features such as USB, DVD-ROM,
>and Windows 2000. Anti-Linux tactics built into Windows 2000
>designed to prevent the implementation of "Dual boot" configurations,
>and "Virtual Machine" configurations such as VMWare, Wine, and DOSEmu
>have cause many people who are entitled to FREE windows 2000 upgrades
>to pause and reconsider their entire commitment to Windows 2000.
First off, DOSEmu is not designed to host Win2000.
Also, Wine is not true virtual-machine software, as VMWare is,
but an emulator of Windows API's.
And is there any *direct* evidence that Win2000 can detect that
it is running in a virtual machine?
And that it has features designed to defeat multibooters? Of
course, it could simply be something undocumented that the multibooter
makers do not know about, but that might be much the same strategy.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:09:31 GMT
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:37:06 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>"Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:46:06 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>>
>> >> ...and just what's so untested about configuration that
>> >> is merely missing one of the components?
>> >
>> >So you think if I take a seatbelt out of a car its going to be anywhere
>near
>> >as safe ?
>>
>> So you think the removal of IE and Outlook from windows would make it less
>> safe?
>
>I think it would make it less functional.
Most windows desktop users also use office on their computers. Would it not
be more functional for them if office was tied to windows? Why do you think
that microsoft made windows with ie tied in, in a no-removal attempt and not
office?
Can it be that office is a big revenue for microsoft while nobody wanted
ie/outlook?
I mean, if ie/outlook are products wanted by consumers, why doesn't microsoft
sell them like office and make a profit?
Can it be that microsoft decided to tie ie to windows and claim it was free
of charge and not possible to remove for the main reason to kill Netscape?
Is it legal for a US company who has monopole on a product to use that
monopole to crush competitors who make other products?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: I dream of Indrema....
Date: 22 Jul 2000 08:24:53 GMT
With all the talk and hype about information appliances, it is
worth noting that there is only one type of really successful one to date
-- the game console, a specialized computer for playing games on.
And so far, most of them have been built on very proprietary
hardware and operating systems, even the Playstation 2. But some new
entries are based on hardware and software that is much more
off-the-shelf. M$'s X-box is a clear example; it seems like a
stripped-down PeeCee (Intel-x86 CPU, Nvidia video card) running a
stripped-down version of Windows NT and using familiar API's such as
DirectX and OpenGL.
But there is one interesting new entry, the Indrema L600
(www.indrema.com). It seems suspiciously like an X-box clone (Intel-x86
CPU, Nvidia video card), but with one interesting difference: it will run
a version of Linux. And also OpenGL, OpenAL, and OpenStream. OpenGL should
need no introduction; OpenAL (www.openal.com) is a recent open-source
audio API, and OpenStream is an open-source streaming-media format being
worked on by Indrema, among others.
There is not much released about the Indrema L600 and its
software, but this is what has come out so far:
Most of its software will be open-source, such as its web browser
(Mozilla), but there will be a closed-source "gatekeeper" module that will
handle security and authentication. Software must be certified by Indrema
in order to run on the console; the payment for this certification process
will be a flat fee for freeware, but will involve royalties for payware.
This parallels typical game-console business arrangements.
There are supposed to be 30 or so games lined up for it; Loki's
catalog may be a big source of Indrema games.
Prospects?
One problem is that Indrema is a small company without a
pre-existing apparatus for marketing and brick-and-mortar distribution,
like the one that Sony had had when it entered the game-console field with
its Playstation. So it may be difficult for the Indrema L600 to get started.
On the plus side, it uses mostly readily-available API's, which
make it (and the X-box) relatively easy to develop games for. It will
apparently be *very* easy to port a working Linux version of a game. Most
other game consoles, however, require rather specialized development
software.
So it will be interesting to see how this contender fares.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
