Linux-Advocacy Digest #77, Volume #28 Sat, 29 Jul 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Bennett digest, volume 1 (Tholen) ("Slava Pestov")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Re: Slipping away into time. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Damien)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (Marty)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bennett digest, volume 1 (Tholen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:46:21 +1000
In today's Bennett digest, Eric Bennett, aka Tholenbot, lies at least
12 times, and repeatedly denies the truth, while continuing to engage
in pontification while hypocritically claiming that I do.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The thread branched in two, Eric. I merged the two branches, Eric.
>
> Illogical,
Why?
> given that you admit both branches were part of the same
> thread.
Correct.
> Therefore, your action was not a "merging of the two threads".
Incorrect.
> Liar.
How predictable you resort to invective when faced with a logical
argument.
>> Typical invective.
>
> Incorrect. See above.
More proof by irrelevant reference, Eric?
>> Irrelevant.
>
> How ironic.
Why?
>> Incorrect.
>
> Typical pontification.
How ironic.
> Where is your substantiation? Why, nowhere to
> be seen!
My substantiation was there all along, until you snipped it, in typical
Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
>> How typical you resort to invective when faced with a logical argument.
>
> Non sequitur, given the absence of a logical argument on your part.
My logical argument was there all along, until you snipped it, in typical
Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
>> Irrelevant.
>
> How ironic.
Why?
>> Irrelevant, given that none of the material was relevant to proving the
>> claim in question.
>
> Incorrect.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>> I see you still haven't noted the difference between implication and
>> inferrence.
>
> Illogical. It is because I recognize the difference that I asked the
> question, Slava.
What alleged "question"?
>> No.
>
> Typical pontificiation.
How ironic.
>> > The proof is your claim that my answer was incorrect.
>
> Note: no logical response.
My logical response was there all along, until you snipped it, in typical
Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
>> Still unable to answer a simple question logically, Eric?
>
> See what I mean?
Irrelevant. Meanwhile, where is your logical answer? Why? Nowhere to be
seen!
>> On the contrary, my claim is quite correct. Of course, anyone with open
>> eyes would recognize that fact.
>
> On the contrary, many people worldwide have their eyes open and do not
> recognize this fact.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>> How ironic, coming from someone who routines fails to pay attention.
>
> "routines fails to pay attention"? How rich!
It was a typo, Eric.
>> Feldercarb.
>
> Typical invective.
The truth is not invective, Eric.
>> My eyes are already open, Eric. How predictable you fail to comprehend
>> that fact.
>
> On the contrary.
See what I mean?
>> More lies.
>
> Prove it.
You claimed:
EB] I made no illogical claim.
When in fact, you did:
EB] The context is your entertainment, Slava.
Hence the lie.
>> On the contrary.
>
> Illogical.
More lies. You claimed:
EB] Seeing things that aren't there again, Slava?
To which I replied:
SP] On the contrary.
Which is not illogical at all, given that you haven't provided any
evidence that I am seeing things that aren't there.
>> Do you always get your enlightenment from illogic, Eric?
>
> Also illogical.
How ironic, given that I have already proven two of your lies, Eric.
>> Incorrect. It is evidence to the contrary.
>
> More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
Where?
>> On the contrary, quite logical. Of course, someone who takes logic
>> lessons from Ian "master of illogic" Haakmat would not know that.
>
> Typical invective. Does the use of incorrect names "entertain" you,
> Slava? Taking posting lessons from Mark Kelley again, Slava?
Typical invective. Meanwhile, I see you still haven't noted the logic
of my statement. How predictable.
>> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>
> Obviously not, Slava.
More lies. Now you're up to 3 lies in a single post. Here is the
proof of your lie:
You made the following claim:
EB] Haven't you been paying attention?
To which I replied:
SP] On the contrary.
Your illogical response demostrates your reading comprehension
problems, given that I never made this alleged "admission":
EB] So, you admit you haven't been paying attention.
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Why?
You made the following claim:
EB] Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
Which is irrelevant, given that you made it on an incorrect
basis. For proof, see above.
>> Illogical, given that you haven't identified the "claim".
>
> Irrelevant, given that you made the claim.
I see you still haven't identified this alleged "claim", Eric.
No surprise there.
>> Illogical.
>
> See what I mean?
No.
>> I cannot answer an illogical question, Eric.
>
> Non sequitur.
So you admit your question was non sequitur, Eric?
>> I wasn't trying to surprise you, Eric.
>
> I never claimed that you were, Slava.
A fourth lie. Your remark:
EB] No surpise there.
Indicates that you were expecting to be surprised.
>> You just replied to the evidence. How predictable you fail to see that
>> fact.
>
> Impossible, given that you never provided any evidence.
A fifth lie. The evidence was the following admission:
SP] It was a typo, Eric.
Because I typed "fact" instead of "claim" in the following statement:
SP] Prove that this fact exists, if you think you can.
>> See above.
>
> Hypocrite.
>
> "Classical circular reasoning. I have already seen the above, and it
> contains nothing of relevence to the current argument."
I only say "see above" when the above material is indeed relevant to
the discussion; unlike you, who seems to use it every time you want
to avoid substantating an erronous claim.
>> More proof by irrelevant reference, Eric? How typical.
>
> See above.
See what I mean?
>> You, Eric. How ironic you fail to recognize that fact.
>
> Incorrect.
A sixth lie. I made the following claim:
SP] How ironic, coming from someone who routinely fails to use the
SP] scientific method.
And I implied that the "someone" was you, given that you do indeed
routinely fail to use the scientific method.
>> Where?
>
> "Your continuing illogic is indeed predictable, Eric."
On the contrary, that claim was quite substantiated.
> Having reading comprehension problems again?
No.
>> How predictable you answered the question incorrectly, given your lack
>> of basic logic and relevacy skills.
>
> It's too bad you still fail to recognize how your behavior is perceived,
> Slava.
What alleged "behaviour"?
>> No.
>
> How predictable.
Common sense makes a cameo appearance. It is indeed predictable that I
fail to subscribe to incorrect beleifs.
> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
My logical argument was there all along, until you snipped it, in typical
Eric "master of deletion" fashion.
>> Incorrect, given that I have not "deleted" anything.
>
> Incorrect.
Then where is your evidence of this alleged "deletion"? Why, nowhere to
be seen!
>> What you think is shameful is irrelevant, Eric.
>
> I see you finally admit that you are irrelevant, given that I think you
> are shameful. Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
More illogic. Taking logic lessons from Eric "master of illogic" Pott, Eric?
>> 20 lines above, Eric. You made the following claim:
>>
>> EB] Illogical.
>
> Irrelevant to your claim, Slava, as you made an illogical statement.
> There was no logic to recognize.
A seventh lie. My statement:
SP] See what I mean?
Was quite logical and unsubstantiated, given that you made the following
claim:
EB] Still having reading comprehension problems, Slava?
Which further illustrates my point, namely:
SP] How ironic you allege that my claims are 'unsubstantiated' when you
SP] have just made one yourself.
>> Which is a perfect demonstration of your inability to recognize logic,
>> given my claim above was completely logical.
>
> You didn't even made a claim, logical or otherwise, Slava, you asked an
> illogical question.
A repeat of the seventh lie. My question was quite logical. See above
for proof of your lie.
>> On the contrary.
>
> Typical incorrect pontification.
An eighth lie. My statement was quite correct, given that I did, in fact,
"cite a specific example", unlike what you attempted to prove by
proclamation:
EB] I see you failed to cite a specific example,
My "specific example" was as follows:
SP] 20 lines above, Eric. You made the following claim:
SP] EB] Illogical.
SP] Which is a perfect demonstration of your inability to recognize logic,
SP] given my claim above was completely logical.
>
>> What you think is vague is irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary. What you think is irrelevant is irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
>> How predictable, coming from someone with serious logic recognition
>> deficencies.
>
> Who?
You, Eric, as my proofs above demonstrate.
>> Illogical, given that my claim was quite correct.
>
> Incorrect.
A ninth lie. You made the following claim:
EB] Typical circular reasoning.
To which I, quite correctly, replied:
SP] Incorrect.
Given that my above remark:
SP] See above.
Is not "circular reasoning", since at the time the above was
very relevant to the dicussion.
> Taking posting lessons from Chris "Roscoe and Flash" Pott?
>
>> What's so obvious about it, Eric?
>
> Self-evident, by definition, Slava.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>> How ironic, coming from the one exhibiting reading comprehension
>> problems.
>
> See what I mean?
Not unless you mean to dig yourself deeper into that hole, Eric.
>> Illogical, given your remark above.
>
> What alleged "remark"?
Reading comprehension problems, Eric? The remark was:
EB] No surprise there.
That implies you were expecting a surprise (otherwise you wouldn't
point out that there wasn't one). Hence, it was very illogical
of you to claim that the following remark was irrelevant:
SP] I wasn't trying to surprise you, Eric.
>> On the basis that you have failed the prove a logical answer.
>
> Typical circular reasoning. Ineffective.
Meanwhile, where is your logical answer? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>> Of course, if you had used the scientific method, instead of erronously
>> pressuposing that it is illogical, you would have recognized that fact.
>
> Circular reasoning is not part of the scientific method.
Correct. Now apply that to the current situation.
>> More evidence of your reading comprehension deficencies.
>
> I see you didn't answer the question. How predictable.
What alleged "question"?
>> No.
>
> See what I mean?
No.
>> Who is this "someone", Eric? It isn't me.
>
> On the contrary.
A tenth lie. I asked you to prove yet another one of your erronous
claims:
SP] Prove it, if you think you can.
To which you replied
EB] How ironic, coming from someone who fails to offer proof.
However, I do provide proof; the proof of your ten (and counting) lies
in this post is ample evidence. Since me and you are the only people
in this dicussion, the only logical conclusion, given that you are
the only possible "someone", is that you, in fact, are the one who
fails to provide proof.
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> The proof is in three parts. First, if I'm not who I say I am, what am
> I doing here, what can I possibly hope to gain? The rescue of an
> imposter, the exposure of three spies? Who to? To the very people this
> was to have been working for. I have nothing to gain.
What alleged "spies"?
>> On the contrary.
>
> Argument by repetition, Slava?
How ironic, coming from someone who routinely engages in argument by
repetition.
>> Unlike you, Eric, I only write 'see above' when the material above is
>> relevant.
>
> Obviously not.
An eleventh lie. For proof, carefully inspect all the instances when
I write "see above", and note how in all those instances, the material
above is indeed relevant.
>> How typical, coming from someone with serious logic recognition
>> deficencies.
>
> Who?
You, Eric. How predictable you fail to recognize that fact.
>> The fact that my remark was logical.
>
> Balderdash, Slava.
A twelth lie. My remark:
SP] How ironic, coming from someone who has serious context
SP] comprehension deficencies.
Was very logical, given that you claimed that I have difficulty
comprehending context:
EB] Comprehend context, Slava.
When in fact I comprehended the context, being your entertainment,
quite correctly, as evidenced by the following remark:
SP] Illogical, as I have no mentor, and I am not a grasshopper.
>> What alleged "Curtis Bass"?
>
> The one you obviously fail to recognize, Slava.
Typical non-answer.
>> Incorrect. See
>>
>> http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=650187557&CONTEXT
>>=964791392.1436352594&hitnum=0
>>
>>http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=648816277&CONTEXT=
>>964791392.1436352594&hitnum
>>
>>http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=648816277&CONTEXT=964791392.
>>1436352594&hitnum=1=1
>
> Illogical, given that in those posts Eric Bennett was posting as Eric
> Bennett, as clearly show in the headers. Have you ever seen Batman pose
> as Michael Keaton, Slava?
On the contrary, Eric Bennett was posting as tholenbot, given the
clearly recognizable Dave Tholen emulation present in those posts.
>> Illogical, given I proved otherwise above.
>
> Incorrect, as shown above.
Incorrect, as shown above.
>> More evidence of your hypocrisy.
>
> Impossible.
On what basis do you make this claim?
>> I wonder how Joe Malloy would react to the news of your allegation that
>> his "reactions" are "irrelevant", Eric.
>
> What you wonder is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
Irrelevant. Meanwhile, you still haven't provided a logical response to
my remark.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:34:28 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
> OK, so I'm disfunctional. I can live with that. I'm pretty good at
> picking things up; perhaps I just never knew how to begin at the
> beginning.
>
> So where's the "teaching language" for structured programming? Isn't
> there anything more accessible without a CS degree that perl, python, C,
> C++, or Java? However important it may be to "learn the right way", the
> nature of the problem for 'beginner's languages' is to provide enough
> potential for even bad code to provide something practically useful all
> the way from the beginning. I honestly don't think FORTRAN or Pascal
> are quite right.
>
> Or maybe I'm just pissed because I never had the opportunity to learn
> programming. All I got was that lousy BASIC.
The original version of Pascal was a good teaching language for structured
programming. You could try UCSD Pascal AKA Apple Pacal for the Apple ][+.
I taught that language to myself in less than in a weeks time using that
dialect. Of course by at that time, I already knew about a couple dozen
programming languages and major dialects. YMMV.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:45:10 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ltei4$h8c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> At my last job, our parent company changed its domain name. As a
> result, our branch had to change e-mail addresses for about 1000 users
> on both our UNIX and MS-Exchange servers. I did the UNIX part by
> myself; it took me about five minutes to re-read the manpages, and then
> ten minutes to hack up a shell script, and I was done. I also helped
> out with the Exchange part on our NT servers; it took eight or ten of us
> most of the day to point-click-copy-paste our way through each and every
> Windows user to do the same thing I did in fifteen minutes on the UNIX
> boxen.
>
> If that represents "ease of use", I can do without it, thank you.
Well now that you bring it up. Here is an example that I have posted a few
times on usenet already, but I am doing it again since it fist in with your
experience.
Consider this situtation: You have a directory
/usr/share/corporate/documents filled with a large number of compressed text
files, your boss (user name boss, hostname bigboy.corpnet) wants you to
extract all the word from those files put them on sepperate lines, sort
them, no words duplicates, put the resulting wordlist file in the shared
directory /usr/share/dictionary/corporate with the name all.words, email him
a copy of the wordlist, the wordlist also need to contain all the words in
compressed wordlist files now in /usr/share/dictionary.
Here is a single line command for unix that would do it:
zcat /usr/share/corporate/documents/* /usr/share/dictionary/* |
words | sort | uniq | tee /usr/share/dictionary/corporate/all.words |
mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s "Here is the new dictionary"
If you don't want to wait for the command line to finish you could
queue it as a batch job by entering.
echo '
zcat /usr/share/corporate/documents/* /usr/share/dictionary/* |
words | sort | uniq |
tee /usr/share/dictionary/corporate/all.words |
mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s "Here is the new dictionary"
' | batch
Try that with a "easy to use" GUI.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 03:50:04 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Linux is significantly slower than FreeBSD.
>
> 1) qualify the statement; it makes no sense
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,400844,00.html?chkpt=zdnnrlb
>
>
> 2) try them on SMP boxes some time
Their SMP is better also. Read.
>
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
However the 2.4 kernel is gaining ground.
You will also see where the old 2.2 Linux Kernel is as far ahead of
Windows 2000 in performance
for servers as Freebsd is ahead of Linux.
Read thru all the references.
BTW.
http://www.freebsd.org
They have the press announcements section which has all the dope Pete
refuses to read
about how Linux is either slightly ahead of NT or simply plasters
NT depending on
what your doing.
When it comes to file serving and print serving, Linux is anywhere from
1.5 to 3 times faster
depending on which magazine article you read and what they did to test.
When it comes to being an SQL server or stand alone tier level process
server, most all
say it's about 10-20 % faster. But, math is math.
Charlie
OH,
BTW. I'm supposed to be full of it so you can't talk to me anymore.
So, nobody write to me anymore, Okay.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 29 Jul 2000 03:50:19 GMT
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:37:52 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Said Damien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
| Personally, I'd be more than comfortable scrapping current GUI computing
| and "starting from scratch" with ncurses, and I don't think the MSdroids
| have too much of a point when they forget that lots of people did, in
| fact, learn computing on DOS. But "the market" wants a very involved
| and complete GUI. I can sympathize with them, even if I think command
| lines are the far more efficient, if slightly more limited, method.
I want a very involved and complete GUI too. (With xterm windows
scattered around.)
| >| No, its going to take real middleware. Not scripting languages
| >| pretending to be programming languages pretending to be middleware
| >| pretending to be applications.
| >
| >That's not the Unix way.
|
| Ah, but its the PC way. And the market way. Or so its said. I
| personally think that middleware is best left as an abstraction, rather
| than a mechanism, but I think its an important abstraction.
Quite likely because you can't sell things like tr, sed, grep, awk
etc. They are too small, the market wouldn't pay enough to afford the
shrinkwrap they would come in. But together they are much more
powerful then shrinkwrap Windows apps.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 03:54:34 GMT
Eric Bennett wrote (on the back 9 of his Illogic course):
>
> > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudolan again):
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
Taking forgery lessons from Chris Wenham? Here's what I actually wrote:
"Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudoIan again):"
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Don't you know?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you think I asked, Marty?
> > > >
> > > > I prefer not to guess. I've noticed that you haven't answered the
> > > > question. Interesting.
> > >
> > > "I'd prefer not to guess."
> >
> > Non sequitur, as I have not requested that you make a guess.
>
> I see that you admit that your own response was a non sequitur,
Liar. I've done no such thing.
> given that I did not request a guess.
What other choice did I have other than to guess?
> Hypocrite.
Liar. I had no choice but to guess if I were to answer your question.
Meanwhile, you were perfectly capable of answering my question without
guessing.
> > > > > > > > > > I wonder how Joe Malloy would react to the news that
> > > > > > > > > > you've been making allegations about him giving "posting
> > > > > > > > > > lessons", Eric.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, Slava?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Frankly, I don't care
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see you didn't answer the question, Marty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the contrary, I see you have failed to comprehend my answer.
> > > > >
> > > > > What alleged "answer"?
> > > >
> > > > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> > >
> > > Impossible.
> >
> > On the contrary, not only possible, but unavoidable in your case.
>
> See what I mean?
Don't you know?
> > > > I have not been privy to any information which would lead me to
> > > > believe
> > > > that Batman was photocopying a script.
> > >
> > > Just because you're not privy to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist,
> > > Marty.
> >
> > Irrelevant, as I never claimed that such information does not exist.
> > Meanwhile, you have failed to prove that Batman does photocopy the
> > script.
>
> Irrelevant, as I never claimed that Batman photocopies the script.
Liar:
EB> Illogical, Marty, given that Batman was reproducing someone else's
EB> script.
> Trying to change the subject
Not at all. How ironic, coming from someone who just changed the subject.
> again
You're erroneously presupposing that I've tried to change the subject before.
> to hide your errors, eh Marty?
Impossible, as there are no such errors to hide.
> > > > Meanwhile, I see you have failed to answer the question.
> > >
> > > Your question was irrelevant,
> >
> > Typical pontification.
>
> Incorrect, given my justification.
What alleged "justification"? Is it similar to the "justification" that
you're no doubt going to give in your reply for your forgery?
> > > given its incorrect basis.
> >
> > Even more pontification, with an incorrect basis no less. How ironic!
>
> Impossible.
Irony is very possible, Eric. Especially in this situation. How typical for
you to be unaware of this fact.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:57:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>: I don't agree with it, but the government would most certainly have a
>: source code license for such an important function, so the arguments of
>: "closed source" are moot.
>
>Perhaps so. However, I think that the prospect of
>what was told here, assuming that it's not just more
>journalistic blithering, is rather dangerous. I just
>can't see the feasibility of using any sort of PC
>hardware/software solution for anything that people's
>lives will depend on. I like WindowsNT very much, but
>I can honestly say that I would never fly in a plane
>that ran WindowsNT in the cockpit. That would be
>absurdly dangerous, IMHO.
Microsoft horrors aside, the idea of a PC to begin with in such a
situation is not problematic enough to be of concern, *potentially*.
(Jeez, if the Navy is really trying to use W2K for real work, I am
dumbfounded and scared.)
But its really quite easy to use a PC for something that people's lives
will depend on. Don't let people's live's depend on it. Redundancy is
generally mandatory to begin with; the less expensive the component, the
more redundancy is allowed.
The PC would be nothing more than an Xterm, for the most part (though
still, quite importantly, capable of autonomous operations). Have two
or three standing by, in case this one takes a crap. And design your
systems so that fail-over and clean fast reboots are non-problematic.
As soon as you presume something is reliable, you are at its mercy.
Proper *system* (really big, broad wide arms stretched OUT as in I'm not
talking about a single computer or cluster, OK?) implementations should
always treat ever single thing as unreliable. If you never presume it
will be there, the system will keep working if its not.
So I'm not really that worried about the use of PCs on a warship.
Microsoft software, of course, is a whole other can of beans.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
