Linux-Advocacy Digest #223, Volume #28 Fri, 4 Aug 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux as embedded OS (Tim Magnussen)
Re: Linux as embedded OS (Tim Magnussen)
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ???? (mitch)
Re: Be OR Linux ("Philo")
Re: Be OR Linux ("Chris Robertson")
Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here? (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Drestin's lies: Re: pssst! hotmail.com moving to W2k ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: 11 Linux features I care about (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: KDE2 Yahooo!!! ("MH")
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux for Desktop, a missing app... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: maximum (?) linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: maximum (?) linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Grant Edwards)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Magnussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 13:30:07 +0200
"David M. Cook" wrote:
> Could you explain why would this put you out of business? Since you seem to
> be a hardware company, why would releasing software that only works on your
> device put you out of business? That your code must be proprietary seems to
> be begging the question.
Well - because a lot of research and development has been put into the software.
Software that could - if it was open sourced be readily used by our competitors
who would gain an advantage from not having to do the developing themself.
Although we deliver a hardware product it is often partly based on a series of
standard components and could be copied. A lot of the domain knowledge is tied
to the software.
Anyway such a drastic step as to open source the total package of software is
sure to scare of the management and if this was the only option, using Linux
would be unthinkable.
------------------------------
From: Tim Magnussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 14:02:10 +0200
Andres Soolo wrote:
> If you're going to build a system on top of them that uses them, it'll
> go a little bit hairier--the GPL modification clause applies whenever
> you do link something to a GPLed library but if you have scripts
> interacting with the engine, you should be safe. With Apache it's
> easy--the only exception would be new modules I guess. PostgreSQL
> seems to be under a very unristrictive license, so the problem won't
> even arise.
<Sigh> - things are getting complicated again. I knew i weren't that simple.
We /are/ planning to build a system on top of them that uses them.
Can you say that:
If you link statically to a GPL'ed product (say a database) with your own module
(developed in C++) that would be a problem (even though you use the standard
database C/C++ API for communication). But if you use an already existing module
that is LGPL'ed it wouldn't. Also if you link dynamically to a GPL'ed package and
only uses existing means of communicating (built-in scripting
facility/user-interface etc) it wouldn't either.
Now if you make your own module for communicating with the database and use this as
a proxy between your proprietary software and the database will this allow you to
LGPL only the module (and keep your proprietary software proprietary)?
> Which parts?
Eg. the parts that is used to interpret the sensory input from the measuring
modules.
I'm very glad to get your input as well!
/Tim Magnussen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 12:10:44 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 21:23:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm running happily W2K ... SNIP
Don`t change unless you are NOT happy with how things are working.
If it aint broke, don`t fix it.
mitch
------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be OR Linux
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 07:19:14 -0500
before you dump your windows...you can try out Be personal edition...
it will need to be installed in your windows partition...then try it out.
it is actually a very good operating system...but is a bit more choosey with
the hardware than linux.
i had to try several machines before i got my BeOS to work.
this may be less a matter of which os is better (they are both good) as
which OS will support the hardware you own plus run the applications you
need.
i'm sure people will tout both operating systems...but you will never be
able to make an intelligent decision until you try them both.
i have personally used linux ,os/2 and windows...and am still using windows
most of the time merely for hardware reasons.
Philo
------------------------------
From: "Chris Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be OR Linux
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 12:31:02 GMT
Well, I have tried out both and as far as hardware goes, It runs Just fine.
Both Linux and BeOS. I have BeOS 5 Pro, so I know that it's a good OS
pretty much. Anyway, Linux does have it's merits.
"Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:398ab4ea$0$150$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> before you dump your windows...you can try out Be personal edition...
> it will need to be installed in your windows partition...then try it out.
> it is actually a very good operating system...but is a bit more choosey
with
> the hardware than linux.
> i had to try several machines before i got my BeOS to work.
>
> this may be less a matter of which os is better (they are both good) as
> which OS will support the hardware you own plus run the applications you
> need.
>
> i'm sure people will tout both operating systems...but you will never be
> able to make an intelligent decision until you try them both.
>
> i have personally used linux ,os/2 and windows...and am still using
windows
> most of the time merely for hardware reasons.
>
> Philo
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 22:29:52 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here?
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> Ray Chason wrote:
>
> > Ballmer...
> > Palmer...
> >
> > Coincidence? (ominous music)
>
> Side note: If you haven't seen the Gates interview over at Red Herring, rush
> over and check it out now.
> http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue82/mag-gates-82-home.html
>
> ---8<-------
Am I just prejudiced or does Gatesy come across as a little deluded (for eg.
about being first in this and that).
IanP
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:14:05 -0400
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 23:05:04 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Netscape didn't go out of business. They lost market share.
>
>They went out of business by losing so much stock value that they got
>bought at fire-sale prices by AOL. A fate worse than death, overall.
>
Didn't Netscape sell out for a couple of *BILLION* dollars? Not bad
for a company that had a free browser and some second-rate
server-ware.
>>
>> The question is, did they lose it because IE was integrated, or did
>> they lose it because IE was *BETTER*? Judging by the nearly unanimous
>> praise for IE from the press at the time, I'd say the latter.
>
>Actually at the time Microsoft started to shoehorn IE into Windows, IE
>was still known as a lesser browser, and couldn't compete with Netscape
>on merit alone.
>
You're precisely right, and I must thank you for making my point for
me. Microsoft had bundled IE 2.x and 3.x with various OEM Windows
versions. Yet IE gained no significant market share until it started
winning all the reviews with version 4.0. So was it the bundling that
beat Netscape, or was it the release of a superior product?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Drestin's lies: Re: pssst! hotmail.com moving to W2k
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:14:24 -0400
Nobody wrote:
>
> On 2 Aug 2000 00:45:31 GMT, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >: news:398632e3$0$33820$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >: > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >: > news:w2nh5.720$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >: > > It's happening... right now... as you read this...
> >: > >
> >: > > you want the URL? facts? details?
> >: > >
> >: > > soon... patient ones... soon...
> >: > >
> >: > >
> >: >
> >: > http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.hotmail.com
> >: >
> >: > www.hotmail.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
> >: >
> >: > Told you so...
> >
> >: Hmmm.... Here's what I get, as of August 1, 2000, 7:00AM PST:
> >
> >: www.hotmail.com
> >: www.hotmail.com is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8 SSLeay/0.9.0b
> >: on FreeBSD
> >
> >It seems that "hotmail.com" returns Apache on FreeBSD, whereas
> >"www.hotmail.com" returns Microsoft IIS on Windows2000. Exactly
> >why this distinction exists is unknown, but it's likely that
> >they're still in the process of converting the site over.
>
> Well for me "www.hotmail.com" also returns:
>
> www.hotmail.com is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8
> SSLeay/0.9.0b on FreeBSD
> ----
> Glenn Davies
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 23:17:55 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Linux features I care about
[OT] Gee is this thread still going?
Brian Langenberger wrote:
> ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> I'm sure this will probably start a whole set of Linus is geekier than
> : Bill
> :> Gates discussions...
>
> : hmmm...bill calls himself the ultimate hacker..and linus calls himself
> : the ultimate programmer. i've heard bill doesn't know crap about coding
> : or anything, certainly not about real hacking and real hackers. linus
> : has the kernel to back him up. what did bill code?
>
> I believe Bill did a nice port of BASIC to the Altair and
> singlehandedly started the pay-software movement by
> accusing the users of being thieves. Since then, I've seen
> no evidence that he has any programming aptitude whatsoever.
> I guess he's a geeky-looking businessman more than anything.
>
> By comparison, Linus is a normal-looking coder with skills in
> both cat herding and patch juggling. Pretty much the
> complete opposite.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:19:52 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >> Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I alreaddy told you its a DOS box on LIE-nux.
> >> >
> >> >You can't spell "already," and xterm doesn't have a command line.
> >> >It requires a shell for that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >C/
> >>
> >> What happen's when you open an xterm? A DOS box pops up, compleat with a COMMAND
>prompt.
> >
> >Enough!
> >
> >It is not a DOS box.
>
> Whattever.
>
> >A shell on Unix is not a DOS prompt.
>
> So it has a differrent name and the back slashes are backword. Big deal.
>
> >I know that
> >no matter how many times it is said, Windows users are not going to
> >believe that a Unix shell is not a DOS prompt and they aren't equivalent
> >in any way other than both being command lines (and that does not mean
> >they are equal). But the two are not equal.
> >
> >An xterm does not give you a DOS box. It gives you a shell in which to
> >enter commands, but it isn't a DOS box. Please, try to understand that.
>
> You run UNIX text commands in them, just like you runs DOS command's in a DOS > box.
>They're the same thing.
One more time DOS != Unix
They are nowhere near the same thing. Wouldn't you be bothered if
someone refered to your precious Windows as Linux?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE2 Yahooo!!!
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:32:34 -0400
> I found KDE2 a tad slow to start on a P-166 with 64 megs and a Matrox
> Mystique PCI video card. Do you have XFree86 4.0 installed? I hear it's
much
> faster with the standard SVGA driver (which is what the Mystique
dictates.)
> I might try that too if it's stable enough.
"A tad slow?" Understatement of the year. I run Red hat 6.2 with whatever
KDE version comes stock with that,
on a PPRO 200 with 96mb's of ram and a Matrox Mill-2 running the SVGA
server. (supposedly one of the fastest X-servers). It's a dog. Load time is
horiffic and screen redraws are just plain scary. Like running windows on a
386. This new version, beta of course, is even slower. I couldn't get any of
the office apps to install\run properly either. But I'll try again too. BTW,
NT4 runs *quite* well on this machine. On an order of magnitudes faster than
red hate.
Opera? Junk. The windows version is no better. It barfs even more than NN.
Which IS saying something.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:33:49 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
> How can the cashere due that if all he due is sit arround edditing UNIX config >
>fial's?
>
> The sysadminns are suppost to do that.
>
Tim? Can you please, please try not to contradict yourself in a single
post? I do sense that you have some truly disturbed mental problems,
but please, at least stay consistant.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[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: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:39:38 -0500
Courageous wrote:
>
> > 1. I'm a combat veteran.
> > 2. I'm still a soldier to this day
> > 3. I'm in the infantry
> > 4. Fuck with me and I will kill you.
>
> You've got to have a pretty small dick to stoop this low.
>
> C//
Yeah, and you just took a giant leap up the conversational poll!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:44:06 -0400
Nik Simpson wrote:
>
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Irational fears, mixed with lies and FUD, make for stupid, pointless
> > posts.
>
> But if we banned such posts from advocacy groups by both sides of the
> argument, the traffic would fall by about 90-95% :-)
>
Only the pro-Microshit posts.
> --
> Nik Simpson
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:45:47 -0400
Mike burns is a coward.
Note how he trimmed comp.os.linux.advocacy out of his replies.
Why did you do that, Mike?
Afraid I might respond to your lies?
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for Desktop, a missing app...
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:47:45 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I wouldn't hold my breath. IBM's latest offering, "WebSphere Homepage
> Builder for Linux" is a Wine app, and you need to install IBM's "Wine
> for WebSphere" to run it. If they release a Notes client in the near
> future, look for it to include as a prerequisite "Wine for Notes".
>
> I like Wine, I really do, but I've already got three different versions
> of it running on this box, I'm not about to try to squeeze another in
> here.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
I don't 'like' the WINE project or the result, but when you have to have
something....
I really look for IBM to eventually develop native client apps for
Linux. I think it's just a matter of time. Of course, that could be
ten years, but I'll still be here.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: maximum (?) linux
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:49:19 -0500
OSguy wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> > They may think they are promoting Linux, but they are really just
> > promoting Windows through bad Linux advocacy.
>
> What is the possbility that Linus could sue them for libel? Sounds like they
> need something to motivate them to do better, or go away. (I too have seen the
> magazine and came away with the conclusion that they were trying to scare people
> away from Linux).
I've kind of wondered about somehow getting word to Linus, but he would
probably just shrug it off. It's not that he wouldn't care, but he
seems to be the type to not easily get upset.
Although if enough people complained we might have something done by
him. But he did (supposedly) an interview for them already and as far
as I know he didn't mind them.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: maximum (?) linux
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:52:19 -0500
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
> While the criticisms expressed in this thread should be
> heeded by the publisher and staff of Maximum Linux, I'd
> hate to see them get discouraged and discontinue it.
> As an introductory magazine for beginners, and as a handy
> source for some Linux software, the publication is doing
> a good job, and performing some unique services.
I would rather they end the "Linux is not for the timid" attitude they
portray, but if they can't do that, then let them be discontinued. It
would be better for Linux in the long run. I can't imagine how many
people read the magazine and assume that Linux is some big scary beast
that they cannot manage. I don't disagree with your points, but the
idea of a few nice things making up for the potential harm they could do
doesn't seem very sound to me.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 14:01:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Reppert
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Grant Edwards) wrote:
>
> > Spending $50,000 on a single computer sounds silly, until you
> > figure out how much maintenance you save when that single
> > machine replaces 10 or 20 others.
>
>Of course, the flip side to that coin is how you handle a
>hardware crash. :-)
One of the reasons you buy machines like that is because you
worry about hardware crashes.
Those machines typically have redundant, hot-swappable,
auto-failover for damn near everything : cpu's, memory, disk
drives, network interfaces, power supplies, etc. Some big IBM
machines are taken down for scheduled maintenance for a couple
hours a year. That's it. Other than that, they are up. We're
talking about "four nines" hardware: 99.99% up time. I don't
thing five nines is realistic, but four nines is.
You can rebuild nearly the whole machine one piece at a time
without even having to re-boot the thing.
If hardware crashes worry you, then PC platform hardware should
be the absolute last thing you buy.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! .. the HIGHWAY is
at made out of LIME JELLO and
visi.com my HONDA is a barbequed
OYSTER! Yum!
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:56:44 -0400
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Wow, that's so complicated. You still get paged from time to time don't
> you
> > > ;-)? When we need to do a system setup or restore, we just netboot and
> the
> > > unattended installer on the server puts 2000 on the box and the post
> install
> > > WSH script reinstalls the standard load of apps. Intellimirror restores
> any
> > > personal files to their places on the local drive (although we prohibit
> > > local storage for the most part).
> >
> > I was talking worst-case scenario for Unix.
> >
> > First,... a typical Unix box can expect to go its ENTIRE LIFETIME
> > without suffering catastrophic filesystem damage.
> >
> > Thus...for many Unix boxes...the call never comes...EVER.
> >
> > In the event that it does happen, then you can do an instant-ignite
> > over the net, and then restore the backup from over the net.
> >
> > ... and I haven't moved from my chair.
>
> Then why didn't you post that in the first place. Needed the exercise ;-)?
> What OS is running on that crashed disk to restore the backup after your
> horribly named "instant-ignite" (I'd worry about a system in whose list of
> features includes the ability to spontaneously burst into flame -- I prefer
> remote-boot :-)
Oh wow. Judging a technology on it's name.
You're in what...3rd grade?
>
> > > Of course we have the *option* of doing it your way but it's so much
> more
> > > complicated than setting the machine for restore and either rebooting it
> > > remotely to start the restore or fixing the hardware (new hard drive
> etc.),
> > > turning it on and walking away.
> > >
> > > Windows engineer never left desk. Relaxation uninterrupted.
>
> Actually PCs have had remote boot since before then. NT has had unattended
> OS installs since 96 too. Although it was unclean to script application
> installers it was better since the same scripts worked regardless of the
> hardware.
--writing scripts that will adapt for any hardware...You write as if you
think this is some sort of huuuuuge accomplishment.
> There has always been the arcane restore from tape approach on NT
> too.
Arcane? Show me a large-scale computing facility that does NOT
do humungous tape dumps every night.
> It's just nice to clear away the cruft now and again. Of course since
> nix is made of cruft if you did that you'd have nothing left :-)
Put... the crack pipe.....down.
>
> > > > Meanwhile, drestin adress will be working overtime on his LoseNT box,
> > > > long into the night...going home when he has achieved the mere goal
> > > > of "getting it running"...and then will resume working on this ONE
> > > > BOX for the next two day.
> > >
> > > So that's why our AIX crew have been slaving for months to get WebSphere
> to
> > > work passably on the $500K fully redundant farm of B50's and H70's
> (secured
> > > by PIXs and sprayed by LocalDirectors) here in our test lab. When all
> along
> > > our single Intellistation development box performs 100x as fast on
> Windows
> > > 2000 with IIS/5.0 and took 15 min to setup. Hmmm.
> >
> > AIX is a piece of crap. Personally, I don't even consider it to
> > be a true unix (Posix-conformance not withstanding)
>
> So quickly the nixers eat their own...
AIX was never meant to be conformant...it was IBM's lame attempt
to make a version of Unix that has all the qualities of a proprietary
OS. In that, they have successfully isolated themselves from the rest
of the Unix world. These days, it's biting them in the rear, as the
percentage of AIX-knowledgeable admins is dropping. Personnall, I
charge 50% EXTRA for working on an AIX machine. They took a large
number of config files in the /etc directory and not only renamed
them, but restructured them (so that that the information which is
held on one LINE on any other Unix machine takes half a SCREEN on
an AIX machine.
Thus, a Solaris machine, I can see a 20-filesystem configuration
on one screen inside the vi editor.
The identical layout in AIX, if I want to study the same configuration,
I have to print out the file.
i.e. the same kind of Nonsense Microsoft would do.
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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
******************************
