Linux-Advocacy Digest #184, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Arthur Frain)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Apache wins, once again (sorry dresden) (abraxas)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("2 + 2")
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Perry Pip)
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps
Re: What are all you nix trolls doing in the WINDOWS advocacy list? (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:25:35 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 05:57:50 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:43:59 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:01:05 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:10:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:20:41 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> [deletia]
>> [deletia]
>> >> >> >> >I was talking about the technology in general, not the implementation in
>any
>> >> >> >> >specific OS. PnP solved a problem for me that I never had. In "solving"
>it,
>> >> >> >> >it created more problems. The RedHat installation does the same thing.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Real PnP doesn't create any more problems.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> pseudo-pnp does.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That's a BIG difference.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Real PnP doesn't exist on PC's. That's the problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes it does.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're just grousing because adding a daughterboard to a PC
>> >> >> is not something you can use for bragging rights anymore.
>> >> >
>> >> >What are you talking about? Gadzooks... where do you come up with this
>> >> >stuff?
>> >>
>> >> Personal experience, shared experience.
>> >
>> >Ah, so you're the one who used to brag about installing "daughterboards".
>> >What you just did is what psychologists call "projection". I just call it
>> >"merrily stuffing words in my mouth to cover your own inadequacies".
>>
>> You can always use dejanews if you think you'll actually
>> find evidence of such things,
>
>Evidence of what things? I'll certainly not find evidence of myself bragging
...of your assertions. Although you don't seem to think that
that is required of you so I won't hold my breath.
>about installing "daughterboards" and getting a macho thrill out of it,
>contrary to your baseless assertions.
No, but you will find evidence of your own 'distaste' regarding
systems that seem to automate too much, or look too much like
systems that do.
>
>> as opposed to the Redhat PCI/AGP success stories that are
>> likely to actually be there.
>>
>> Hell, even in this thread there's mention by me of successful
>> PNP with ISA under Slackware 5 years ago.
>
>Do you just spout off at random? That has nothing to do with what was being
>stated.
Sure it does. It addresses your weak attempt at being witty
quite squarely actually.
>
>> >> Very little of it indicates any problem with modern pnp.
>> >>
>> >> PCI is quite robust. Why seek to avoid it if there isn't
>> >> some sort of macho stupidity going on?
>> >
>> >Now you can dodge the following question through your usual deletion tactic:
>> >Where have I indicated that I sought to avoid PCI?
>>
>> It's an interface that "assumes the end user is a moron" by
>> automating a process that previously required arcane knowledge
>> and manual tweaking.
>>
>> It is the facility responsible for those aspects of the Redhat
>> install that are more automated than other older distros like
>> Slackware.
>
>Are you even conscious when you are writing this crap? That has nothing to do
>with your accusation that I tried to avoid PCI. Do try to keep up with your
>own absurd accusations.
Sure it does. It relates to "assuming the user is a moron" by
alleviating the need for them to do potentially difficult and
arcane things, or by merely removing control from the end user.
>
>> >> Why seek out the extra work? Why seek out the extra trouble?
>> >
>> >For me, "extra work" represents having to figure out how to tell 3 different
>> >operating systems to recognize that a piece of hardware uses a given set of
>> >resources. I was saved from this extra work by the simple use of a jumper in
>> >the past.
>>
>> Such things are unecessary if you avoid ISA, which is not hard
>> to do in this day and age.
>
>Wrong. Assume I have a PCI PnP sound card. Said sound card has an SB
>compatible mode. I want to play a DOS game. Now I get to play the "guess
>which IRQ" game.
Why?
Just ask the BIOS where your soundcard is.
You really have no clue at all.
>
>> Even if you don't, such things are only necessary for legacy
>> devices. Even so, the likes of Slackware will still "treat you
>> like a moron" because such "treating you like a moron" features
>> have been in the core kernel since at least 1995.
>>
>> Redhat or !Redhat has little to do with it.
>
>Asshole: Listen loud and clear for the THIRD time. I said NOTHING about PnP
>support in Redhat. I said RedHat gets in my way during the installation and
>setup the same way PnP gets in my way for configuring hardware. How thick is
No it doesn't.
It doesn't 'get in the way' because it is not based on a 20 year
old bus that never had any notion of autodetection or automagic
resource allocation built in.
Short of a lack of IRQ's available, everything is going to be
correctly and reliabily sorted out by the BIOS.
ISA is another matter, but ISA should have been dead and gone
10 years ago....
[deletia]
Bughat's eccentricities are certainly annoying, and certainly
something that could be a matter of taste. However, someone
capable of meaningfully jumping between 9 Unixen shouldn't
find them too much of a burden or challenge.
You should have an interesting reaction to Xfree 4.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SemiScholar)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:35:20 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 11:41:08 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Retard wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:34:50 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Retard wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:07:11 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> >> Steve Chaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >On 1 Aug 2000 06:12:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >How good does a power mac work with Linux? That processor should be
>> >> >> >screaming without the limitations of (pick your Apple OS of the day).
>> >> >> >It sure turns out x86 screams without the limitations of Windows,
>> >> >> >that's for sure!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It performs excellently under the BeOS, though I haven't tried a
>> >> >> PowerPC flavor of Linux yet.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Apple is still too slow with MacOS X :-(
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, maybe if you got some hardware that wasn't stuck in the 1980's....
>> >>
>> >> ROTFL!!! This from a "Unix Systems Engineer"?? Hahhahahahahah!!
>> >>
>> >> Unix was a good idea. ... ... in 1969
>> >>
>> >> So you think a G4 is a 1980's processor? LOL!!
>> >
>> >Unix had windows before Microsoft even wrote MS-DOS.
>> >
>>
>> LOL!
>
>It's TRUE, it's TRUE!
Details, details. I was _there_ back then, and I don't remember no
steenking "windows".
- SemiScholar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:35:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dale Lakes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:00:50 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> ¯You mean providing an enviroment that allows a poweruser to rapidly and
>> ¯effectively multitask between a multitude of different documents and
>> ¯applications at the same time?
>>
>
>That bit about winderz "multitasking" is something that irks me every time
>I hear it. I'm required to use an NT box at work and every time the box is
>the slightest bit busy it takes like 15 seconds to flip between "multitudes
>of different documents." My linux boxes at home don't exhibit this behavior
>in the least - even if I'm compiling a kernel on one virtual desktop and
>running a java program in another I flip between documents, VT's and even
>desktops when no noticeable delay. This is particularly troublesome
>considering that the NT box at work is a pentium 400 and my fastest box at
>home is an AMD 300.
>
>Winderz may multitask in the strict sense of the word, but barely... and
>certainly not very well.
To be extremely pedantic about it, what you're complaining about
is not the multitasking -- specifically, context switching (although
NT is notoriously bad there, too) -- but paging performance and/or
scheduling reprioritization.
As an example: the Amiga had very very neat and small memory usage,
but its scheduler had no reprioritization capability; if a high
priority process started to hog the processor, the mouse cursor
would start to do what I might call "the dot dance", as opposed
to smoothly moving across the screen; this is because it could
only get tiny little slices of processor during interrupts.
The lower priority processes would get no time at all.
This is not to say that NT suffers from the same malady, of course.
In fact, I'm not sure what NT suffers from. (Apart from code bloat,
perhaps. :-) )
Any time a system has to hit page store, performance will start to
suffer -- in fact, Linux will start to slow down slightly well
before that as its file cache (in otherwise unused RAM) is exhausted,
but then, so will NT.
It takes about 100 nanoseconds to fetch a longword from RAM. (If that!)
It takes a few milliseconds -- call it 10, for various reasons
(rotational latency and head seek among them) to fetch the same
longword from disk; of course, about 255 other longwords will come
along for the ride (most consumer-level equipment has 1KB pages),
so the cost/longword might be 40 microseconds, assuming sequential
access. If the page thrown out of RAM has to be written, the
cost/longword doubles to about 80 microsecond under certain conditions:
write, then read.
40 microseconds / 100 nanoseconds = 400x slowdown. Ouch.
(Note that, as a check, that most high-end SCSI consumer disks
used to have a sustained throughput of 10 MB/second, and now it might
be as high as 40 MB/second, which implies 40,000 pages per second,
which implies 25 microseconds a page. So I'm not too far off in
my estimations -- in fact, I may be a bit optimistic.)
I think part of Linux's success may in fact be from the philosophy
that smaller is better. Although emacs is big and powerful in
the Unix world (and presumably has been compared to a monster by
some -- VI/Emacs wars are legendary, and IMO slightly silly), I for
one do not know how it compares to Microsoft Word, running-size wise.
Nor do I have any experience with WordPerfect. (I've used FrameMaker,
and have no complaints -- but that's on an HP/UX system, and I don't
use it very often and have not used it for more than a year.)
I have my suspicions, though.
So, if one opens a document in Linux, it tends to be a smaller
text document as opposed to a bigger and prettier multifont
OLE document. I've heard of die-hard web fans who swear that Lynx
is sufficient to read all information on the Web (I'm a middle-of-
the-roader, myself; Lynx is useful, but in certain venues it is
rather limited -- of course, it depends on whether one wants
to read the text, or view the pictures :-) ).
As for the X Windows System -- hard to say. I find X more flexible
and easier to program, but that's because of long experience.
I wouldn't advocate using X over a 56k line unless one likes slow
refreshes -- but it probably performs better than Windows, even
with pcAnywhere, although I'd be curious as to whether anyone has
actually tried this. :-) (And X has been doing this for how long?)
As for performance, I'd say the two are roughly equal. I don't
know about memory usage -- and it's a bit like comparing a NASCAR
racer to a Grand Prix car. Both generally do the same thing,
but have different rules, constraints, and body design.
(And then there are the NHRA dragsters and funny cars,
various outlaw roadsters, monster trucks, motocross, snowmobiles,
etc. etc.... :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:30:00 -0700
Loren Petrich wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Besides, in case you haven't notices, the tax-funded schools
> >are absolute, complete SHIT right now.
> From a grove of birch trees it came.
I think Aaron must mean Purdue - you know,
the tax-funded school he attends.
Arthur
.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:01:55 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:05:04 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Seems like an amazing amount of trouble when simply buying a Win98
>> machine in the first place is really what the customer wants....
>
>"Wants"
>
>or
>
>"Buys because that's what everyone else is doing."
or
"Isn't even aware of this OS thing and will buy the prettiest
case and end up with an iMac"
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 19:13:17 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Again, you are an old money advocate. You are saying that how well a kid
does
> > should be causally related to how much money their parents have. This
> > is a shining example of your survival-of-the-fattest philosophy.
>
> Wrong. "How well a kid does" is determined by how well he applies
> himself in school.
>
Wrong. There's been plenty of studies that show that children from lower
socio economic areas perform worse academically than those from higher socio
economic areas. There's a lot of factors that come into it, but it boils
down to the poorer you are, the worse you will likely perform academically.
It's hard to concentrate in school when you're starving from not having
breakfast or lunch...
Sure there are exceptions, and it also works the other way - some people
from high socio economic areas are thick as pigshit.
<snip ridiculous, pompous and well overlong sig>
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:19:52 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Microsoft has such a good platform, then why are the servers
> > > > > > that come under the heaviest usage Unix machines?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How come no Lose2000 machines?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that's a compelling argument! Also completely false.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest,
most
> > > > > heaviest tasks.
> > > >
> > > > EVERY Fortune 500 company I have worked at keeps their most
> > > > important databases on AS/400's and Unix machines.
> > >
> > > which demonstrates exactly what we've been saying all along. You are
full of
> > > it! And, besides, so what if 1 or 2 F500 companies keep "most" of
their
> > > "important" databases on AS/400s and Unix machines according to
ex-employee
> > > kookis. All the rest run on less expensive, easier to maintain/operate
and
> > > more productive Windows/Intel boxes.
> >
> > Oh god!
> >
> > I get tired of this argument that running on wintel is better than
> > running on AS/400s (or *nix boxes) because it is "cheaper". By the time
> > you actually get a wintel box/cluster running at the same performance as
> > any AS/400 (for similar jobs) you have spent an equal amount of money on
> > the wintel solution, plus you have the added benefit of always wondering
> > when some aspect of it will fail and you will be re-installing. I have
> > yet to see wintel provide a solution as stable as an AS/400, and
> > stability does count when you are talking 'cost'.
> >
> > As far as *nix goes I can usually put together a box/cluster of *nix
> > boxes for a lot less money than the equivalent with Windows on Intel,
> > and still end up with more stability and reliability. Once again,
> > stability does count when you are talking about 'cost'.
> >
> > After all, wasn't it Microsoft that started screaming bloody murder
> > about total-cost-of-ownership when they thought people were starting to
> > gain interest in other operating systems? I have yet to see proof that
> > forced upgrades every couple of years and a lot of down time in between
> > is more cost-efficient than a solid AS/400 or *nix solution with little
> > to no unscheduled downtime and no forced upgrade cycle.
> >
>
> Quite true. Most the early 1990's Unix machines I come across
> are running the very latest software releases.
>
> Hehj heheh heh
>
True, but the speed of a Snail! I know my friends Unix box from ~1990 had
a whopping 1 gig harddrive. They upgraded to NT, since the software
company making Anvil (I think that the name of the CAD program) was dropping
Unix and only supporting NT.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:15:13 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:55:31 -0500, gLiTcH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >> I know I'll get booed, but what the hell:
> >>
> >> Cause the whore is a pro, and probably knows how to do things that your
> >> friend providing free sex doesn't. Of course, these are the things that
> >> cause heart-attacks and strokes (hmmm, I drew the analogy to Windows
> >> even better than I thought I could). And let's not forget the great
> >> array of diseases provided by the whore.
> >>
>
> The only problem with this is the fact that the whore is a
> businessman.
Um, the only problem? Come now Jedi, surely you didn't think I meant
that heart-attacks, strokes and 'the great array of diseases provided by
the whore' were meant as good things? Of course, I guess there are some
that might see those as good things...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Apache wins, once again (sorry dresden)
Date: 2 Aug 2000 18:34:48 GMT
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200007/weighted.html
Dresden? Any lies youd like to spew? Ridiculous claims youd like
to make?
Oh come on.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 14:39:52 -0400
Mats Olsson wrote in message <8m8nuc$fu2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <8m7q95$nlf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>
>>Mats Olsson wrote in message <8m74co$dbj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>>In article <u_Ch5.5822$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>news:8m6f7f$hf3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> Partitionable or non-partitionable data?
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't matter to the TPC. Both are explicate allowed.
>>>
>>> Yep. Of course, to anyone trying to decide what the TPC/C numbers
>>>_mean_ and how useful the number is, it is crucial to know whether it
>>>used partitioning or not.
>>>
>>> For example, if you are doing read-only database work, then the
>>>partitioned numbers can be pretty interresting.
>>>
>>> OTH, if you need to do handle ecommerce and want all those writes in
>>>one database, then you want to look at the non-partitioned versions.
>>>
>>> So, while it is legal to use tpm/C for both partitioned and
>>>non-partitioned runs, it is extremly important to know whether or not
>>>it was partitioned runs.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if all you want to do is benchmarketing, the
>>>difference is of course neglible.
>>
>>You overlook the fact that the IBM result of 444,000 tpm is on 4 clusters.
>
> Is it? IBM seems to be saying it is on 32 4 CPU machines. Of course,
>they may be wrong - care to come up with a link?
>
>>Each non-clustered box has 110,000 tpm, which approaches the Sun mark of
>>136,000, AT ROUGHLY THE SAME PRICE.
>
> Could you perhaps show any kind of link to support this claim? There
>doesn't seem to be any other Netfinity 8500R c/s benchmark listed.
I stand corrected. And withdraw the related point.
2 + 2
>
> /Mats
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Date: 2 Aug 2000 18:38:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 16:45:06 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2 Aug 2000 14:07:58 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:30:52 -0500,
>>Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>scaddenp wrote:
>[deletia]
>>>while it isn't completely 'free' altogether, it is free other than the
>>>time that is spent by the developers when they could be doing other
>>>things (see above).
>>
>>And where people in the Government have been involved in free
>>software, it has been for thier own purposes. For example, NASA's
>>Beowulf project has saved the taxpayers hundreds of millions in
>>supercomputing costs. Compared to that, the cost of them giving back a
>>few device drivers to the Linux community is minimal.
>
> They needed those device drivers anyways...
That's basically my point. Except that....
> The 'cost' would have been incurred.
...In this case Donald Becker has gone beyond the needs for beowulf
and provided a good deal of general ethernet driver support for the
Linux kernel:
[perrypip@x38 perrypip]$ cd /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/
[perrypip@x38 net]$ grep -l nasa.gov *.c
3c501.c
3c503.c
3c507.c
3c509.c
3c515.c
3c59x.c
3c90x.c
8390.c
ac3200.c
at1700.c
atp.c
auto_irq.c
de4x5.c
de620.c
e2100.c
eepro100.c
epic100.c
eth16i.c
fmv18x.c
hamachi.c
hp-plus.c
hp.c
ibmtr.c
lance.c
loopback.c
ne.c
ne2k-pci.c
net_init.c
old_tulip.c
rtl8139.c
sbni.c
skeleton.c
smc-ultra.c
smc9194.c
tulip.c
via-rhine.c
wavelan.c
wd.c
yellowfin.c
znet.c
[perrypip@x38 net]$ grep -l nasa.gov *.c | grep -c .
40
[perrypip@x38 net]$
That's 40 different network drivers. Certainly more than what is
needed for a beowulf, unless you are building an extremely
heterogenous one. Nonetheless, the cost is still much less than what
Linux has saved them.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:44:35 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:15:13 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:55:31 -0500, gLiTcH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>> >> I know I'll get booed, but what the hell:
>> >>
>> >> Cause the whore is a pro, and probably knows how to do things that your
>> >> friend providing free sex doesn't. Of course, these are the things that
>> >> cause heart-attacks and strokes (hmmm, I drew the analogy to Windows
>> >> even better than I thought I could). And let's not forget the great
>> >> array of diseases provided by the whore.
>> >>
>>
>> The only problem with this is the fact that the whore is a
>> businessman.
>
>Um, the only problem? Come now Jedi, surely you didn't think I meant
>that heart-attacks, strokes and 'the great array of diseases provided by
>the whore' were meant as good things? Of course, I guess there are some
>that might see those as good things...
The disease part is avoidable.
My response disputes the Heart Attack and Stroke bits.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What are all you nix trolls doing in the WINDOWS advocacy list?
Date: 02 Aug 2000 11:21:54 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:G%Mh5.8387$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Can you identify the on-line identity of those who added th unix / Linux
> > > news groups back into the thread?
> >
> > I was posting in a thread with Mr. Kulkis and petilon. I removed these
> > groups nearly a dozen times. I'd have to retrace the history to pinpoint
> > the offender but I think that's well know to the offending parties. Let
> it
> > suffice to say that nobody likes it on either side of the fence.
<snip encellent investigative work by [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike, I also took a look at your accusations, and I've come to the
same conclusion as mjcr. In almost every instance where you snipped
out COLA, you refer to people who use nix as trolls or losers, or you
have a cute BWAHAHAHAHAHA somewhere as if you were trying to look K00L
for COMNA. Why don't you supply specific examples of instances where
you snipped COLA out of a thread and then that thread was added again
by a COLAer. I haven't been able to find a single example.
There are more COMNA crossposters than COLA crossposters, IMO. COMNA
has the crossposting king in drestin black (although after the beating
he's' taken thus far in the 'Linux can physically destroy your hard
drive!' thread, maybe he'll think twice about it next time. ;)
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:51:09 -0500
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 16:57:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> It's having more trouble breaking into a market with a lot more
> network effects to contend with but even there it is slowly
> gathering momentum.
Yes - very slowly. And in a few years it will really be there.
> In markets with simpler needs, it's simply outdoing Microsoft.
> (embedded end user applications and servers)
On that I completely agree - when there's no software or other worries
to tie a user to a platform, Linux does very well.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
