Linux-Advocacy Digest #105, Volume #28 Sat, 29 Jul 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Marty)
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (B'ichela)
Re: A Case Study of Software RAID Systems (Christopher Browne)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Christopher Browne)
Re: C# is a copy of java (nf)
Re: C# is a copy of java (nf)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> You didn't state it like it was meaningless opinion.
> >>
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> If you can't actually describe what is wrong with what you have,
> >> it is absurd to think that you have any clue what you want. At
> >> best you just seem to be on an anti-Microsoft jihad.
> >
> >Since your memory is failing, here's what I originally said which kicked this
> >whole thing off:
> >
> >"I've really been getting nauseated with Linux ever since I first laid eyes on
> >fvwm95. I ran Slackware a while back and I thought it was pretty keen. But
> >Redhat makes me want to vomit. Everything tries to magically configure itself
> >and do everything for me, the stupid user. Unfortunately when something goes
>
> ...damn that Intel deciding that the hardware having no real
> clue or control as to what is going on in system is a bad idea.
Look at Plug N Play and tell me which is better. I prefer labotomized
jumpered hardware myself. At least of the decision making is left up to the
user, and it's within the user's grasp to fix the problem easily.
Amusing that you are commenting on this as if it were the first time you've
read it. I guess I shouldn't find that surprising.
> >wrong (not if) there are now 12 more layers of complexity in my way to work on
> >solving the problem. In the old Slackware days, I used to find the exact
> >script or configuration file in no time flat, make the change, and I was done.
>
> If you can't do that in Redhat, what happenns the next time you
> for some reason need to move to a slightly variant other Unix?
Let me put this in a way that makes it absolutely clear:
I have a day job. I get paid for said day job. I get paid well for said day
job. What do I do when I'm working at this day job? I write Unix software.
The software that I write for which I get paid very well has to run on 9
(that's right NINE) platforms all of which claim to be a form of "Unix". I
don't have any problem with variants of Unix.
> You're essentially making the same sort of complaint that Windows
> users do when they whine about anything being not exactly like
> explorer or word.
>
> Besides, some of the earliest 'wizard configurators' were actually
> in Slackware.
And I didn't have a problem with any of them and here's why:
"I despise software that assumes I have no clue what I'm doing."
They assumed I knew what I was doing and let me do it easily. There was just
enough helper stuff there to make the job convenient without getting in the
way. If everything goes a-ok, then I have no problem with RedHat. However,
when something goes just the slightest bit askew, the entire process is
derailed.
Here's a perfect example:
A friend of mine at work was attempting to install RedHat 6.2 on one of the
newer IBM Thinkpad P3's (the 600s?). We took the time to partition the drive
and get ready for the installation. His video hardware is a NeoMagic chipset
which was fully supported by the SVGA server according to XFree86.org.
We began the installation and it went to kick into X. Unfortunately, the SVGA
server could not correctly distinguish the chipset from VGA, so we wound up at
320x200. The happy installation utility pops up and we could see about 30% of
it on the screen. We couldn't grab the titlebar. We couldn't use the
keyboard to manipulate it. We couldn't pan around. We were dead in the
water. Since we couldn't do anything else, we hit CTRL-ALT-Backspace to get
out of there. Now what does RedHat do? It exits to the console and reboots
*immediately* without the slightest verification that the installation was a
success or even giving us a choice to do something else back at the console.
Of course, after rebooting, we could choose the text mode installation and
proceed from there, but it's exactly that kind of logic that I described above
that really ticks me off about the whole setup.
> >I despise software that assumes I have no clue what I'm doing."
> >
> >Do you see the word "Microsoft" in there? And after reading it again, what
>
> Certainly, by way of Fvwm95.
I wasn't aware the Fvwm95 = Microsoft. Fvwm95 typifies the kind of
applications which are springing up throughout the Linux community which
nauseate me because they attempt to create a look and feel that I despise. I
just never understood why someone would go through efforts to do such a
thing. Like I said before (and you ignored), it's like souping up a Pinto or
a Chevy Citation.
> It's certainly not a 'we'll do everything for your' sort of
> windowmanager and is really just fvwm2 with really trivial
> tweaks.
You're combining the two points I was making in a nonsensical way.
> >was I actually complaining about (read the last quoted line)? I've got a very
> >good idea what I want and need, your arrogant idiocy notwithstanding.
> >
> >> >> Personally, I think you're just a mindless troublemaker.
> >> >
> >> >How ironic.
> >> >
> >> >Meanwhile you've again leapt up onto your high horse and told me,
> >> >matter-of-fact, that I don't know what I'm talking about while offering no
> >> >credentials of your own. Your words are worthless and frankly I'm surprised
> >>
> >> Credentials are not required.
> >
> >They are if you're going to tell me what I do and don't want. Meanwhile I see
> >you've avoided presenting them again. Not surprising. If you had anything of
> >note, you'd undoubtedly have offered it. As I figured, I'm talking to a
> >pumped up end user who doesn't know jack shit.
>
> Quite the contrary. I've pointed out that there are all sorts of
> end user interfaces out their for Unix, including some that turn
> what would normally be conventional gui apps into character stream
> oriented ones.
Which applications use these interfaces and how? And what does this have to
do with my paragraph above? Is your guesswork and claims supposed to
constitute "credentials"?
> Everyone is coming to Linux from somewhere and bringing in interface
> ideas from all over the place. Some are more visible than others but
> that diversity has existed since the days of Fvwm95.
I'm not claiming there's a lack of diversity. In fact, I'm not claiming
anything. I simply stated my preferences.
> >> I'm not the one making the vacuous claims
> >
> >Bullshit. You're the one who's telling me that you know better than I do what
> >is suited for me.
>
> At the moment, I happen to be claiming that you have no reall
> awareness of what you want.
And as such you are full of shit, as I am quite happy with what I have. Is
this standard operating procedure for Linux advocates, telling others that
they aren't happy with what they have? If you want to sway my opinion, doing
it from the perspective of "someone who knows better" isn't going to do it
(unless you can provide impressive enough credentials to give your words
weight, which you haven't).
> >> and avoiding any attempt to add any useful detail to them.
> >
> >"I despise software that assumes I have no clue what I'm doing."
>
> I'm not sure you really know what constitutes that sort of thing.
>
> Certain sort of interfaces typically associated with ease of use
> are not merely limited to drooling morons.
I understand that. You gave a good example of that yourself: The Slackware
setup stuff.
> Infact, one usually gets more out of such interfaces if you have
> a bit of initiative.
I have no desire to fight with a pretty installation program to coax it to do
what I want. Like I said, I'd have no problem such programs if they worked
and worked reliably. Take the MPTS (Multiprotocol Transport Services)
installation programs in OS/2 for example. They do *everything* for me and
they are bulletproof. If I want to install TCPIP, it asks all the right
questions, fills in the blanks itself, tells me to pop in the CD and it's
done. If I want to install NetBIOS over TCPIP without TCPIP having been
installed, it's smart enough to realize this and do what's needed. If I want
to change my configuration to use a NetBIOS/NetBEUI configuration, it knows
what needs to be changed and does it in a flash. Do I have a clue of all the
configuration files it's changing under the hood and what's getting installed
where and when? No. Do I need to have a clue? NO. And that's the key
difference. RedHat is not smart enough yet for me to just sit back and trust
what it is doing.
> >I've already given as much detail as anyone needs to see where I'm coming
> >from.
> >
> >> >you know how to use that new-fangled "internet" thing at all.
> >>
> >> It would not surprise me if I have been flaming morons
> >
> >Don't you mean "have been a flaming moron"?
>
> It doesn't really matter either way. The point is the same.
Do you often refer to yourself as a moron?
> >> like you here on the net since before you even started computing.
> >
> >What makes me a moron? I know what makes you an asshole: your arrogance.
>
> Yup, I'm arrogant.
Well at least you can admit it. That's the first step toward getting better.
> That still doesn't change your lack of articulation.
It's hard to articulate past your delete key.
> [deletia]
See what I mean?
> >> You can't even articulate what precisely is 'wrong'.
> >
> >"I despise software that assumes I have no clue what I'm doing."
>
> That is highly vague and subjective.
So why are you scrutinizing it and demanding facts?
> It also makes it sound like you only seek out interfaces
> that soothe your own inferiority complexes.
I seek out the best tools. Complexes have nothing to do with it. If a tool
is going to operate on the assumption that it knows better than I do, it
better damn well be correct. If it is, then I'm happy. If it isn't, then
it's either RedHat or Windows.
> >> Nor can you offer any suggestions regarding alternatives, not even
> >> unrealistic ones.
> >
> >Why should I? It's not my problem, after all. I've made it not be my problem
> >by chosing a platform that met my tastes better.
>
> You made a claim. You might as well fully articulate it.
You might want to leave the articulation intact.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela)
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 21:07:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 29 Jul 2000 19:00:13 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As someone on this newsgroup said quite snidely. Linux can use
>>the old style of computer equipment called terminals.
>
>Yeah and all you cando is tipe in them.
Might do you some good, you might learn how to spell for once!
>
>>This can be a very big deal in a larger environment were
>>the system administration needs to not only maintain the hardware
>>including the Uninteruptable Power Supply (UPS) or the backup
>>generator(s)).
>
>So give all the work to the usors.
Any one in the business world of management will tell you that
leaving people to their own devices (not nessarly computer hardware)
in a business will result in a mess.
Remember your little Linux piece. you made wisecracks about
all of those Linux Electricians? In the corporate world. having every
user creating and modifiy his hardware results in all kinds of
disasters! That means that the System Administration has to know not
only how to run the main servers but how to modify and install umpteen
numbers of video, sound and speciality hardware that may probally be
used by one person!
>
>> [1] at one time a lan was a buss type topoligy that would have
>>allowed several clients/servers to connect to one wire. This was in
>>some ways where a LAN was conenient. With the use of 100/10baset this
>>is no longer the conveience that it once was. Like the dumb terminals
>>mentioned above you need one drop for each. Now a lan really is not
>>such a compettive system vs a set of terminals plugged into a terminal
>>server. The same wire used for a 100/10baseT system can be used with
>>terminals. In the wiring closet one still plugs them into a central
>>box. Only its a terminal server instead of a hub or switch.
>>
>> Your comments on this piece are welcome.
>
>I'll replay to this: Your idea is dum. A terminnall is dum because it cant have GUI.
For many people a GUI is NOT required. I am typing this using
Vi under Slrn, right now on my main box. A gui often slows people
down!
--
B'ichela
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Case Study of Software RAID Systems
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:48:54 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when abraxas would say:
>Cool kids do not use software RAID systems. They buy a 20,000 dollar
>controller and stick a bunch of shelves fulla drives on it. That way
>the operating system in question ISNT.
Good point; the "software RAID" scenario isn't what you should be using
if you actually want a high availability system.
Software RAID may be good for some cool cooked research papers that
people can blather over, but 'tis better to have the hardware doing the
work for you...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
>Ever heard of .cshrc?
That's a city in Bosnia. Right?
(Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of commands.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:49:03 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donovan Rebbechi would say:
>On 29 Jul 2000 19:59:49 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>The guy who gets hired as the CEO is the guy with the rich parents,
>>who can afford to send him to the Harvard business school.
>
>Gross over generalisation. What do you think the state school graduates
>do, make sausages ?
Well, they're not likely to go to Harvard Law School (the more likely
scenario for the CEO; the really senior guys tend to be _lawyers_, not
MBAs...), so they're not likely to have a secondary career that pays
$250/hour if CEOing doesn't work out...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
>Ever heard of .cshrc?
That's a city in Bosnia. Right?
(Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of commands.)
------------------------------
From: nf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 21:38:13 -0400
In article <8lvrrv$bcu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> nf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8lteof$6lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > says...
>
> > Point being in many languages you won't end up over the cliff in the
> > first place.
>
> Sure they do. When ever you have to program something that the language is
> not good at.
>
My response would be why are you using that language for something it's
not good at? You should use the language that best suits the job at
hand.
(Now granted, we are not always given that choice!)
> >
> > You can't over-run an array in BASIC or Pascal. You can in C.
>
> Sure you can. Depending on the dialect the symptoms can be different as
> well as how crossed the line in the first place. But it can be done on both
> BASIC and Pascal.
>
In general: Basic and Pascal have bounds-checking. So if you declare an
array with 7 elements and you try to write to the 9th element the
compiler will flag you. (Or at worst you will get a run-time error).
Are there ways around it to "break" it? Sure. Is it harder to do than
C or assembly? In general, yes.
> > It's far easier to leak memory in C. (Now fixed in C# using a Java-like
> > garbage collection scheme).
>
> You are speaking from your long time experience programming in C#? <G>
>
No. But I have some exposure to the C# language. Garbage Collection
*IS* an advertised feature. It remains to be seen how well it works. I
am basing this on my practical experience with Java though.
> > Errors like this can be difficult to troubleshoot at best.
>
> True enough, for ANY of these languages. Except for C#, I can't speak to
> that one yet.
>
Fair enough.
------------------------------
From: nf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 21:30:41 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > I've worked on 6800's and the Intel's 8088 assembly ... Which ones
> > aren't like having wisdom teeth pulled?
>
> Actually, they are ALL quite easy to use.
>
Easy to use, yes.
First choice for a desktop GUI application? Nah.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:18:42 -0400
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Spud wrote:
> > >
> > > [snips]
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > > driver not even in the car. Seen the Libertarian poll numbers
> > > lately there
> > > > > chief?
> > > >
> > > > Sooooooooooo, truth is determined by how many idiots agree with
> an
> > > idea.
> > >
> > > I see you agree with the suggestion others have made that those
> > > supporting the Libertarian position are, in fact, idiots.
> > >
> > > Hmm... wait a sec... didn't you say *you* were such a person? :)
> >
> > So, you are saying that unnecessary government interference in
> people's
> > businesses and personal lives is a good thing.
>
> Odd; I don't recall saying anything which could even _potentially_ be
> interpreted that way. However, to answer the question...
>
> No; _unnecessary_ government involvement in people's businesses and
> personal lives is not a good thing. However, _necessary_ involvement
> is. What of it?
You're against the Libertarians...and they stand against unnecessary
government interference in people's lives.
It only stands to reason, then, that you support those who ARE
for unnecessary government interference in people's lives.
GAME
SET
MATCH
Spud Loses.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:19:47 -0400
sandrews wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > sandrews wrote:
> > >
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Remember how we always laughed at people when they'd stay stupid things
> > > > like: "I installed this game and it physically destroyed my hard drive" and
> > > > we'd patiently point out that that's impossible and it's probably a fried
> > > > partition and/or FAT table and so on...
> > > >
> > > > well, it turns out that Linux onces again "innovates" - it's now possible to
> > > > actually, physically destroy your hard drive using some simple code (link
> > > > provided)...
> > > >
> > > > Turning disks to bricks with Linux. Andre Hedrick is the maintainer of the
> > > > Linux IDE/ATA subsystem; as such, he works with a piece of code that is
> > > > critical to the vast majority of Linux users. He also sits on the ATA
> > > > standards committee, and understands well the ups and downs of how the
> > > > protocol works.
> > > > He recently discovered a significant "down." It seems that there are certain
> > > > ATA commands that can be sent to a drive which will cause it to destroy
> > > > itself. Andre posted a thing he called disk-destroyer.c (see below) which
> > > > will use an IDE command to trash the partition table on a disk, thus
> > > > rendering all data inaccessible. Apparently, however, there are other
> > > > variants possible which will cause the drive to wipe out its firmware, thus
> > > > turning it into a true brick.
> > > >
> > > > And here is the code:
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * gcc -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -s -o disk-destroyer disk-destroyer.c
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > #include <unistd.h>
> > > > #include <linux/string.h>
> > > > #include <string.h>
> > > > #include <stdlib.h>
> > > > #include <stdio.h>
> > > > #include <fcntl.h>
> > > > #include <errno.h>
> > > > #include <ctype.h>
> > > > #include <sys/ioctl.h>
> > > > #include <sys/shm.h>
> > > > #include <sys/stat.h>
> > > > #include <sys/sysmacros.h>
> > > > #include <sys/time.h>
> > > > #include <sys/times.h>
> > > > #include <sys/types.h>
> > > > #include <linux/hdreg.h>
> > > > #include <linux/fs.h>
> > > > #include <linux/major.h>
> > > >
> > > > int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > > > {
> > > > unsigned char args[4+512] = {WIN_WRITE,0,0,1,};
> > > >
> > > > int fd;
> > > >
> > > > if (argc != 2) {
> > > > printf("usage: %s device\n", argv[0]);
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > if ((fd = open(argv[1], O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK)) == -1) {
> > > > perror("couldn't open device");
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > if (ioctl(fd, HDIO_DRIVE_CMD, &args))
> > > > perror(" DISK_DESTROYER falied");
> > > >
> > > > close(fd);
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Are you saying this won`t run on ms systems?
> > > I think it very well could.
> >
> > Necessity dictates that an equivalent exists. How else would FDISK
> > work?
> >
>
> m$ FDISK doesn`t work! Its broken, it use to wrok way back in ms-dos
> 3.3
> but has since became, 'fixed' and now it doesn`t work. Ever try to
> delete non-dos logical drives or ntfs logical drives. FDISK won`t
> doit.
>
> --
> M$ Windows is aptly named, after all, it's easily broken, and offers
> little
> security, just like the glass ones...
And when it breaks...it's a REAL bloody mess.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:23:10 -0400
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > EVERYBODY ELSE prefers SCSI.
>
> Really? Why?
>
> Let's see; I want a new HD. A nice, big 60Gb HD. Okay, I've got a
> 5400RMP ATA-66 drive here for $399. Let's see what the SCSI offerings
> are...hmm, the closest is a 73Gb, at $1719. Okay, well, let's be a
> little more comparable, let's check back to the IDE drives. Yup,
> there's a 75Gb, 7200RPM ATA-100 drive, for $769. I could get two of
> those and have change left over for the price of a comparable SCSI
> drive.
If SCSI drives were made in the same volume as IDE drives, and
IDE drives were made in the same volume as SCSI currently is,
the prices would be reversed as well.
Besides, SCSI is superior technology. I can hook up 15 SCSI
160MB/sec SCSI drives on one channel of an Adaptec 29160...
and 30 of those drives on a 39160.
>
> Oh, but hold on... with SCSI, I can drop two drives in, right? Or 6,
> if I want. Fine, let's go with 2 30Gb SCSI drives instead of one 60Gb
> drive. Hmm, I have 36Gb drives available, starting at about $900. Not
> a winning proposition.
>
> For the price of 60Gb with SCSI, I could get 180Gb with IDE, and still
> have a connector available for my CD. Well, actually, since my CD is
> SCSI, I could actually drop 4 60Gb IDE drives in, for about $1600, or
> that one 73Gb SCSI drive for $1700; by my count, I get 240Gb for $1600
> versus 73Gb for $1700. Yes, I definitely want SCSI.
>
> SCSI makes perfect sense under _certain_ circumstances: if you _need_
> to run many separate devices. If you need the performance available
> by using drives which can fully operate in parallel. If I were
> running a database server feeding 10,000 people's data requirements, I
> would _definitely_ look at SCSI. For non-server computing purposes,
> however, it seems both pointless and expensive.
If SCSI was pushed as heavily as IDE, it would be even cheaper than
IDE.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
