Linux-Advocacy Digest #954, Volume #29 Tue, 31 Oct 00 03:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (Jacques Guy)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux? ("Chad Myers")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux in approximately 5 years: ("Bennetts family")
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Ms employees begging for food ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:14:46 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
"." wrote:
> Its not semantics actually, its legalities. They changed the kernel
> without either Cox's or Torvald's approval; therefore it is not
> linux.
But, in the distribution I have, one of the six CD is supposed
to contain the source code. Not that I bothered to have a look
at it: I wouldn't know what to do with it beyond compiling it.
(Being nurtured on ALGOL, Simula and Pascal, C is a bit of
a foreign language to me. I can read it, like I can Russian -- I
do know quite a bit of Russian, but I'm not fluent in it).
So if the source code has been modified, but is still
open, isn't that still conforming to the rules? At any
rate, I had gathered that it concerned only an
optimization taking advantage of the instruction set of
the 586 family of chips?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:15:30 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Of course it is 'arbitrary'. If you expect it to reach a 100% bug-free
> >state you don't understand software development.
>
> No, it'll never be bug free. I know that. I also know that I trust
> Linus' judgement about when it is close enough more than I trust
> Compaq's marketing department, or Rex for that matter. Linus is more
> trustworthy partly because he doesn't have, or at least hasn't had, the
> pressures Rex is talking about.
Then why continue the delay, abandoning the release early/often
philosophy from the days of even less pressure?
> And it is a no-win situation anyway. If he blesses it now and it isn't
> "good enough", then Compaq will issue another press release stating
> that Linus really screwed up releasing that buggy old 2.4 kernel. If
> he waits, then he's blowing Compaq's investment and killing the
> momentum.
>
> If you think it through, the best course to take in this situation
> might very well be to delay it some more.
Maybe, maybe not. In practice it is going to be as much the
stability of glibc that makes or breaks a system as the kernel
itself. The sooner a vast number of these are running together
the sooner the next round of bugs will be shaken out.
> >Sure, Linus doesn't 'owe' the world a new release. He can hold
> >off forever if he wants a different hobby. That doesn't change
> >what people need.
>
> Yup. And if he does that then people will come up with a new
> mechanism. If people "need" 2.4, then they can use it today.
They can, but are the interfaces really frozen?
> >It will change the number of copies in actual use by several
> >orders of magnitude. You can pretend that isn't important,
> >but it is.
>
> But it won't solve the problem Rex is addressing, that being the
> supposed need for a reliable 2.4 by yesterday. For the appliance
> applications he cited there is little need for 2.4.
Nobody is that unrealistic.
> >> Again, Microsoft has far more to answer for regarding delays than
> >> Linus does.
> >
> >But they weren't anyone's 2nd choice with an obvious alternative.
> >Linux has no locks on any market share.
>
> And a couple months delay of 2.4 is going to kill Linux?
It will certainly be a big advantage for Microsoft.
> Will it kill
> it worse than a more-than-normally buggy 2.4 release now? Sounds like
> a judgement call to me. Who do you trust?
>
>
> >Are you offering to explain to them why their files are limited to
> >a tiny (these days) 2 gigs?
>
> Newbies are going to be creating 2 GB files on their internet
> appliance? That's what we were talking about. Somehow, I doubt it.
Did you offer advice about people never needing more than 640k of
memory or 32M of disk space too? 2 gigs is about the same kind
of number these days. A few minutes of video, maybe $10 worth
of space -- why would anyone think twice about using more?
> For servers, Compaq does offer a 64-bit CPU, and so they can offer
> large files today with 2.2 if they need that feature.
How much extra will you pay for the CPU so you can fill $10
worth of disk space?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:56:04 GMT
"Roger Lindsj|" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tk19l$42h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> What applications do you need?
Real ones, not cheap knock-offs.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:59:36 GMT
"Jake Taense" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >They can't even keep some hackers out of their corporate
> >server site containing W2K code, yet he will argue with
> >you about Microsoft security until his penis falls off.
>
> One piece of advice - when advocating, avoid making stupid, incorrect claims
> like the above, because when you obviously don't know what you are talking
> about, the rest of your post is snipped as useless.
>
> Everything I've read indicates the hackers/crackers/whatever were NOT able to
> access any OS or Office code. Show me a single, reputable source that claims
> the individuals managed to get to the operating system source servers, and
> I'll retract my post.
>
Facts? Ha! Charlie has no concept of facts, proof, logic, etc.
Whatever sounds good to him and fits the cause it the post d'jour.
He's the Poster boy for Linux Advocacy.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:00:16 GMT
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:43:16 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
>
> ><snipped as useless>
>
> <plonk another Wintroll>
*PL0NK* Another stupid Linvocate unwilling to accept facts.
Please, show us where there is an article stating that, in fact,
Windows source code was stolen.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:30:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:42:31 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Compaq does have a legitimate beef.
> >
> > No, they don't. For some reason they have made up their minds that
> > they must have 2.4 right now. I have no idea why they think that,
> > but
> > the stuff you're talking about is *already being done* by other
> > companies using 2.2 kernels. What Compaq executives have in their
> > heads is not Linus' responsibility.
> >
> > >They were planning to release the Ipaq and their Internet Appliance
> > >with the 2.4 kernel.
> >
> > What do these need from 2.4 that isn't in 2.2?
> > USB is the only thing I can think of,
USB, Firewire, interrupt binding, process binding, and large file
support (for video via broadband).
> > and everybody else is shipping backports on 2.2 kernels.
If there were an official version of 2.2 that supported these
features, it would by more time for 2.4. If Linus decided to
release a version of 2.4 that supported these features with
the ability to support other promised features later on, that
would be acceptable.
The problem is that there is nothing "Official" that supports
critical features. And one can only assume that "beta" code
is still "all bets are off" as far as calling conventions, APIs,
and even whether the feature will be included in ANY future release.
Backports are, by nature, unsupported by anyone.
Again, commercial interests need something they can literally "take
to the bank". If you've ever tried to finance a car, a house, or
a business, you know that banks take a real dim view of "I want a
bunch of money, for something, but I'm not sure what". The bank
usually wants to know Blue Book Value on the car, a reliable and
independent appraisal of the house, or assurance that the business
plan isn't based on totally bogus assumptions (like vaporware).
Only a formally released version of 2.2 (such as 2.2.16) or an
official version of 2.4 is suitable for this purpose.
> > For that matter, just ship 2.4-pre-something and call it good.
> > I don't think appliance users are gonna get all
> > bent about what version they have.
> >
> > Yup, it sounds like the 'problem' lies mostly in the heads of some
> > executives.
> >
> > >Very true. One of the problems right now is that OEMs are
> > >assuming that once 2.4.1 comes out, that will be "it" for
> > >the next two years.
> >
> > Then they haven't been paying attention for the last two years. Not
> > Linus' fault.
> >
> > >There are two many people betting too much for you to wait
> > >another 3 months for "perfection".
>
> If they have so much on the line, why don't they devote a bunch of
> programmers to it like everybody else does?
You're assuming that they haven't. In fact, nearly all of the major
OEMs has put substantial resources into supporting Linux, especially
the 2.4 kernel.
Ironically, this may have resulted in TOO MUCH support for the kernel.
> > So Linus should declare it official
> > because some suits have a warped idea of reality?
Here's the question. Would you borrow $1 billion from you friends
and family, knowing that you might blow the entire amount because
Linus didn't deliver within the market window.
> > Rex, if I wanted a Microsoft product, I'd buy one.
And the Linux community has been campaigning for nearly
5 years to be accepted as a rival to Microsoft, both in the
server market and the desktop market.
For nearly 5 years, Linux supporters have produced outstanding
results, met or exceeded expectations, and literally blown Microsoft
out of the water in terms of performance, reliability, features,
and price.
And now, just as billions worth of resources are being poured into
the commercial adoption of Linux, Linus freezes at the wheel.
There might be a legitimate reason for the delay, but it hasn't been
adaquately communicated. If Linus needs help, it's available. If
he can communicate the issues, he will get support. He always has.
Instead, we only know that Linux is being delayed. That critical
features are not available in any release, robbing Linux of the
ability to prove itself as a competitive product, is a problem.
Arguing about this, especialy in a public forum, is a problem.
The more you argue that commercial interests have no right to
expect reliability and dependable products, especially when
they ARE willing to contribute significant resources, is
just not the best way to "Beat Microsoft".
> > If Compaq believes that this sort of
> > "thinking" is going to result in
> > anything but crap, they are dreamers.
> > How long does it take to make an
> > omelette? Can you do it twice as
> > fast if you turn up the heat?
> >
> > AFAICT, the problem as you have described it boils down to the fact
> > that the users and the people who are doing the work don't give a
> > flying fuck about what corporate America thinks it needs.
I very much hope you are wrong. I would hope that there are enough
people participating in Linux who wanted to see Open Source accepted
commercially and displacing proprietary and exclusive technology
that they would actually be concerned about the needs of corporate
customers including OEMs.
> > I count that as a good thing.
Fortunately Bob, you don't speak for the entire Linux community.
Fortunately I don't either. But there are people like Ransom Love,
Bob Young, Jon "Maddog" Hall, and several others who have been actively
involved in building the Linux Industry into a credible economic force
have a very legitimate beef.
If Linus Torvalds echoed your sentiment, Microsoft would be dragging
it into court, into negotiations with OEMs, Corporate Users, and
anywhere else that they could lock up the market in this moment of
insecurity.
> > --
> > -| Bob Hauck
> > -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> > -| http://www.haucks.org/
>
> --
> Did you know that if you took all the economists in the world and
lined
> them up end to end, they'd still point in the wrong direction?
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in approximately 5 years:
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:06:06 +1100
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 10. MS Office sales fall through the floor after people realise that
they
> > > don't need a million features that they never use.
> >
> > I'm impressed with Office 2000... when you are trying to do something
that
> > has an associated built-in feature, the 'assistant' comes up with the
> > correct way of doing things -- very nice.
>
> You must be one of the few people who like the assistant.
>
Even almost all Winvocates hate the paperclip, this creature is a rare
exception.
--Chris
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 07:12:54 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, if it didn't, then why did everyone go to switched Ethernet just
> about as fast as they could afford to?
Because it's a pretty cheap thing to do if you already have structured
cabling? Because you can get larger networks at very little
configuration cost (as opposed to using routers between network
segments)?
And yeah, because you get better capacity for each workstation.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:11:05 -0500
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:19:04 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > What makes something "criminal"?
> > Do I really need to explain our judicial process to you??
> > EXTORTION IS ILLEGAL AND THERFORE CRIMINAL.
>
> In effect, contrary to government regulations.
And your point is?
Hint fucking hint: wanting government protection of rights (as defined
in the constitution) does NOT imply a desire for socialism, which
ends up ALWAYS being implemented by a kleptocracy (see: Russia, China,
Sweden, UK, Canada, and every other place where having everying provided
for you means first having everything stolen from you).
>
> --
> Loren Petrich
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> And a fast train
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "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"
I: Loren 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 07:17:52 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >It is just the simple trade-off between efficiency and generality that
> >we see in every product. If you are very short-sighted you go
> >for immediate efficiency and it ends up being wrong in the long run.
>
> Well, it wouldn't have been, if Novell and the LAN server market not
> been stymied by illegal monopolization, resulting in the common
> attribution of Novell's hard times to generally vague and often nameless
> "mistakes". It was the most efficient mechanism, and so by all rights
> should have been a) profitable, and b) competitive, in encouraging
> market opportunities for more optimized and/or flexible alternatives.
Replace 'efficient' with 'limited' and you will see why this view is
wrong.
> >The difference in on-the-wire efficiency might be measurable on
> >something as slow as arcnet, but makes no real difference at
> >ethernet speeds.
>
> That would depend on what you consider "ethernet speeds". The correct
> throughput rate to measure on an Ethernet is comparable to arcnet.
> Ethernet's CSMA/CD relies on statistical access to the media, and is
> only really efficient at nominally 10% of the "bandwidth speed".
Please try this on an in-spec ethernet before making claims like
that. Ethernet speed is wire speed.
> A competitive company, like Novell was, and might still be (who can tell
> these days?) relies intrinsically on alternatives and competition to
> lead the way in what is necessary to expand their market opportunities.
> Novell could have easily built a decent cross-protocol proxy engine into
> Netware, and opened up all Novell LANs to Internet scalability with a
> whole raft of good new products. Instead, they hobbled along trying to
> get the shell-game based tunnelling crap they kept trying to develop,
> because it was all the market could bear.
I don't think there was a lack of customers for a native-IP-only
netware, it just didn't happen.
> >Again, the network implications are irrelevant compared to the
> >memory footprint.
>
> To you, maybe. But the solution was a failure if it didn't account for
> network implications, as much as any other, just as it wouldn't have
> worked had the memory footprint been considered irrelevant. You confuse
> your perspective with the priority. No requirement has priority, unless
> you're misrepresenting the meaning of "requirement".
Make up a bunch of ipx size packets and the equivalent ip size packets.
Time them going over a wire.
> >> So the logical address used by IPX host
> >> and routing software was made up of an arbitrary network number (the
> >> "segment ID" in IPX-speak) and the MAC address of the NIC card for that
> >> host.
> >
> >Note that 'arbitrary' numbers don't work for addressing, which should
> >have been clear from day one.
>
> On the contrary. The idea that a host number is not arbitrary, or that a
> network number is not arbitrary, likewise, is counter-productive.
Routers can only deal with very small numbers of arbitrary numbers.
> It
> took DHCP to solve the problem that IPX never had, because of this
> design. The only problem with it is that it does not support
> sub-netting. But that's a whole other ball of wax, and doesn't really
> mean anything in terms of "arbitrary numbers for addressing", from what
> I gather you mean.
What I mean is that there is no structure to the cable numbers and
routers had to learn them all. For IP, you assign addresses to the
hosts and the network (cable) numbers just fall out as a result. For
IPX you have to assign cable numbers and there is no way to
make them aggregate sensibly. I'm not talking about an arbitrary
number of addresses, but how to physically route a large number
of addresses that are assigned arbitrarily.
> Variable length subnet masks weren't themselves
> really effectively implemented until 1998, if you could delude yourself
> into thinking there are any effective implementations of variable length
> subnet masking.
Variable length masks weren't needed until it became obvious that
the wastefullnes of using the orginal class designations was going
to be a problem and that aggregration had to happen in more flexible
units.
> >If cable numbers were really supposed
> >to be a workable routing concept, a global registry would have been
> >needed (as already existed for the MAC numbers).
>
> You mean "global uniqueness", I presume, which isn't the same thing at
> all as a "global registry".
No, I mean a system that permits/encourages/enforces aggregration of
units so backbone routers can maintain a single entry for a large number
of host addresses that may be reached through that hop. Global
uniqueness is also needed, but the inclusion of the MAC address
takes care of that for ethernet end points.
> But its apparent that you are referring to
> the flexibility of not having a fixed division between network and host
> number, as in IP. But with address spaces as large as IPX, who needs
> them?
How do you route for large numbers of connected hosts?
> IP's 32 bits hardly compares to IPX's 16 byte segment number
> *plus* 16 byte (twelve digits of hexadecimal values is 16 bytes, isnt'
> it, or is it 8?). The only difference it would make in the end is to
> people who would find the routing of a packet through 24 different
> routers to be offensive in comparison to 17 routers, to get from one end
> to the other on the Internet. Routing still works whether you use a
> subnet mask or discreet numbers to identify the destination network
> (and, in fact, using subnet masks is more efficient in some cases and
> less in others).
Subnet numbers can be aggregated, arbitrary discreet numbers can't.
> TCP/IP isn't really a hierarchical routing system, or at least it wasn't
> until CIDR was introduced in 1997. In August of that year, the term
> "class" became obsolete in TCP/IP, though it is still often used to mean
> the equivalent "N bits of subnet mask".
Yes. Do you understand why arbitrary-width CIDR aggregration
was necessary?
> Segment IDs ("cable numbers")
> at least allow for a more rational definition of the "network
> interface".
Unless you are a router trying to store them all.
> >In the early days, fragmentation was absolutely necessary, and prevented
> >it from becoming hopelessly intertwined with one arcane CPU type
> >the way DOS and Windows were/are. A huge number of problems that
> >still haunt us are related to the silly limits built into DOS and the
x86.
> >Unix went through its own problems with 32-bit and VAX-bit/byte
> >order assumptions but those were all shaken out long ago.
>
> And replaced with "other problems". You seem to act as if fragmentation
> is a thing of the past.
I hope not - it is the source of improvement. It isn't a problem unless
you make it one by choosing a product with incompatibilities.
> >> I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you again. UUCP may have
> >> prototyped email and newsgroups, but there was never a true convergence
> >> of UUCP and the Internet in the way you describe.
> >
> >Yes there was, as far as email and usenet were concerned. There
> >was even some effort to provide ftp-over-email services to everyone.
>
> You mistake "ability to" for "convergence with."
You sent/received email and worked whether you were on the internet
or not. How is that different from converging? Many systems had
internal IP LANs without being connected to the internet and used
uucp to batch-transfer email/news among each other and their
better-connected gateway. A host on this kind of net would have
local services just like an internet-connected box - it just took longer
to transfer to off-site locations.
> >In the late 80's and early 90's it was difficult to impossible for
> >companies not involved in defense research to get directly on the
> >internet. However, UUNET and some universities provided uucp
> >dial-up connectivity. Anyone could register a domain name and
> >have full internet email connectivity regardless of the fact that they
> >weren't directly connected.
>
> True; I understand your point. It is the fact that they were not
> directly connected which makes the difference from my perspective. I
> guess the servers were connected through the Internet, rather than UUCP,
> but the majority of Usenet was still servicing 'direct access' UUCP,
> even server-to-server.
There was an attempt to map the arbitrary mesh of ad-hoc uucp
connections so you could email anyone without knowing the
route, but basically anyone who cared about reliability got
their own domain name and a directly connected gateway like
uunet.
> >Once it became possible to connect directly, uucp was no longer needed
> >or desirable and the considerable effort needed to route email over
> >many unorganized hops was dropped.
>
> Yes, I guess this did occur in the later 80s, didn't it.
It was probably early 90's before it became easy.
> [...]
> >Novell simply addressed the limited environment delivered by
> >Microsoft better than anyone else. Now that the limitations
> >are gone and everyone has more than 640k of usable memory
> >there is no longer any reason to want to deal with more than
> >one network protocol and routing concept.
>
> If the limitations are gone, I can't see any reason to limit anything to
> one network protocol and routing concept. ;-)
Administer an all-IP net vs. one where an assortment of protocols
are all running and you will see. You basically multiply the
things that can go wrong (and Murphy wins, your downtime)
by the number of protocols running because each has its own
failure mode. Or just run a sniffer on a multi-protocol net when
it should be idle and look at all the useless chatter from each
one. For example, every Windows box will be broadcasting
its netbios name using every protocol you have active every
few minutes. Netware is even worse, and appletalk the worst.
> >IPX can't work
> >as the only one so it is out of the picture if you remember
> >that the only reason for using it in the first place was simplicity.
>
> IPX works just fine for quick local connectivity. One might say we
> don't need it, but its still there, as is (gasp) NetBIOS/NetBEUI. As
> carefully (or not) tunneled as it might be, the efficiencies of having
> local and long-haul communications use the same routing mechanisms seems
> somewhat pointless, in some respects, don't you think?
NetBIOS is a software layer. NetBEUI is unroutable and can't handle
more than 254 nodes. IPX usually requires more expensive router
software plus the extra time to set it up. There is a point to using the
same protocol for everything if you are the person who would have to
keep the multiple versions working and provide the extra bandwidth
for duplication. And, in every box it is that much more that can
and will go wrong.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
