Linux-Advocacy Digest #509, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 16:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows (Aaron Stewart)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: More Linux woes (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (Steve Mading)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Linux Show! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Server Saga (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Some things are easier in Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux ("Chris Coyle")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: 16 Jan 2001 13:45:10 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > [snipped]
> > >
> > > You know, this whole benchmark silliness is too much to take. And yes
I
> > > said this before, during and after the stupid Mindcraft bit.
> > <snip yawner>
> >
> > > The side that makes Linux or FreeBSD the clear winner is ssh and UNIX
> > > remote capability. One can do anything remotely to a UNIX box that
they
> > > can do sitting in front of it. This is not true with NT/2K without
> > > buying extra software on top of the already too expensive buggy OS.
> >
> > Obviously you are not up on NT software. I have been able to remotely
> > administer NT 4 since day 1, sure with add on software at first and
later
> > using simple remote admin http and RPC tools. Simplicity. With Windows
2000
> > I can use all of those, any 3rd party tool or I can use the built in
> > terminal services administrator mode and have a full remote session,
> > identical to the desktop in every single way.
>
> Oh, please. I am talking the big "administer" not selected text mode
> programs or services. A Linux or FreeBSD box can have EVERY
> administration task performed remotely, all but one. The only exception
> is when the machine don't boot, and that is a drive in event no matter
> what.
You have never used terminal services and have no idea of what it is.
I am talking the complete full totally just like you're sitting in front of
it administer. You are looking at the desktop and have access to everything.
Everything. Get it? It's like being there.
>
> Don't trifle me with your NT crap. It ain't even close.
Do a little reading and researching, after you see what can be done through
the built-in terminal services you'll be back to apologize if you have any
decency. W2K can have EVERY administration task performed remotely.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:45:46 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:38 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:14:37 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:19:13
>> >> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> [snip]
>> [deletia]
>> >> >my storage needs would be (how to properly set up mac connectivity,
>> >> >how to best squeeze file serving performance from Linux, etc).
>> >> >
>> >> >It was then that I learned that Linux couldn't handle >2GB files on
>> >> >a 32-bit platform (something that it still has a problem with today!).
>> >>
>> >> Considering that Alphas still stop all over IA32 based machines
>> >> in terms of floating point (and digital media tends to be
>> >> chock full of floating point calcs), actually getting an Alpha
>> >> for the job wouldn't be such a stupid thing to do.
>> >
>> >Like I said, I was looking for a relatively inexpensive solution,
>> >which is why Linux was in the running.
>>
>> Compared to a PC suitable for video production, an Alpha
>> based system really isn't that much more expensive.
>> Furthermore, Alpha and Sparc based systems have been
>> available in the PC price range for longer than you've
>> been trolling this newsgroup.
>>
>> >
>> >If I was going to buy a bunch of big, expensive hardware, I
>> >wouldn't have bothered with Linux in the first place.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Thus, restricting the hardware to '32 bit' is entirely arbitrary
>> >> on your part and specifically designed to yield the failure that
>> >> you really wanted.
>> >>
>> >> [deletia]
>> >>
>> >> FILM QUALITY PRODUCTION VIDEO has been done under Linux, so
>> >> a few TV clips shouldn't be a problem.
>> >
>> >They either had to clip everything to approx 15-minute segments
>>
>> So? What's the real problem with that.
>
><sigh> That question alone proves you have no concept of what
>we're talking about.
>
>We don't have all the time in the world.
Then educate us, assuming you can actually articulate
the details of the 'problem'.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Aaron Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:48:05 -0800
<snip>
>>>
>>> Actually, it works here, but if it doesn't, Caldera is paying someone to
>>> implement it right.
>>
>>Seems like Mandrake couldn't get it right.
>>
>
>This is what I'm saying. Try Debian.
That makes a whole heck of a lot of sense for those guys (and yes, I'm
one of them) who have several boxes running Mandrake and have this
problem.. Reinstall the OS to fix a front-end utility.. What a
concept! <LOL>
It's fairly obvious that it _is_ possible.. My experience has been
thus far that SMB works fine, can see the network using smbclient or
smbmount, and the rest of the network can see and authenticate with
the NT Domain perfectly well on a mixed subnet network. For those of
you who are interested, I'd be more than happy to share an example
smb.conf with you instead of simply saying "Works fine here!" and
leaving it at that.
It is also fairly obvious that KDE's file manager (I could name it as
konqueror, but that appears to be a more common name for the web
browser, not the file manager, e'en tho they're one and the same)
doesn't like looking at SMB networks.. I bring up smb:/domainname or
smb:/server name and am greeted with a blank list.
Thus I pose a question: has _ANYBODY_ gotten this to work, and, if so,
can they provide a working set of instructions to do so (conf file for
konqueror, or perhaps a set of steps to take).
It's not the easiest thing to do; it's been 2 weeks and I'm still
banging my head over it.. (_I_ believe you Pete :)..
Cheers,
Aaron C. Stewart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove N_S from email to respond)
"There is Magic in the Web"
>
>
>
>>> If you really want it now, use Gnomba as a "neighborhood"), and configure
>>> it to run "kfmclient openURL" when opening a share.
>>
>>Well, I decided it was easier to use NFS, Linux seems to work with that. Of
>>course, I can't immediately find an NFS client for Windows, so I use SAMBA
>>on the server. That works fine too. What I can't quite get to work is a
>>Windows server. Then, KDE can't see Windows shares, even if smbclient can.
>>
>>> > Konqueror as a web browser appears to have problems with some of the web
>>> > sites I visit.
>>>
>>> Konqueror on 2.1 works with even more sites than it used to.
>>
>>I'll have to wait for a CD to be available with a version Mandrake with KDE
>>2.1 on it.
>>
>>--
>>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>>
>
>
>I just don't have any trouble with this.
>I just don't.
>
>Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 16 Jan 2001 19:46:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2001 13:19:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On 16 Jan 2001 06:42:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>> On 14 Jan 2001 22:06:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>>>>>>>>>>> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>>>>>>>>>>> consider it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The bulk of what constitues Apple NeXTstep is already
>>>>>>>>> running on top of X courtesy of GNU and has been for
>>>>>>>>> awhile now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The bulk of what constituted NeXTStep was display postscript, and is not
>>>>>>>>running on linux at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...DPS has been running under Linux/GNU for at least 2 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Indeed; I was quite incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Except that its much, much better under OpenStep/OSX. :)
>>>>
>>>>> GNUstep is OpenStep.
>>>>
>>>>Not in anyones wildest, wildest dreams.
>>
>>> OpenStep is a publically documented specification.
>>
>>Actually, OpenStep started out as an operating system, and then became sort of a
>>GUI+apps overlay for Solaris. It never made it to any other platform.
>>
>>While GNUStep may have alot in common with OpenStep, it is not the same thing
>>at all.
> http://www.gnustep.org/GNUOpenStep/OpenStepSpec/OpenStepSpec.html
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bvito/index.html
Have you ever *used* openstep?
>
> Also, according to Apple's own site the Next version of openstep
> also made it to NT and HP/UX.
Yes, in the same way that NT made it to PPC...i.e. a stillbirth of marketing;
The NT and HP/UX versions never made it out of raw betas.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: 16 Jan 2001 13:49:05 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> > > Painful as it is, we need to acknowledge that Unix
> > > is by far the superior server platform, and will most
> > > likely always be so.
> >
> > But it's not and obviously you are not the "windows lover" you claim to
be.
>
> Ah, how could I not love windows? but come now, let's
> be honest, it does crash quite often, and the performance
> as a server will most likely never approach that of Unix,
> especially Linux or FreeBSD.
>
> I cheered along with the rest of you when windows finally
> got close to Linux in the specweb benchmarks. Still lagging
> a little, but respectable. But then we all found out that they
> used a special web cache in front of their web server to
> try to get it to run as fast as Linux. Sad, sad state of affairs.
>
> Let's be honest, windows has it's place, but it will never
> replace Linux, and honestly, it shouldn't even try.
You certainly mean "Linux replace Windows" - windows is already here, it's
entrenched. The new kid on the block is Linux, trying to succeed where other
Unixes and OS/2s and Mac's and others have all failed. And honestly, Linux
shouldn't have even tried... but that's ok, competition is good, good to
kick MS a little and get them going. Balmer says linux is a threat to
Windows - GOOD, time to get serious and kick ass.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:55:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:20:22 GMT
<GKR86.79671$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >>Like IBM, for instance?
>> >
>> >IBM runs NT and OS/2 in their hardware support centers.
>> >They run VM legacy applications along with Windows at the call center
>>
>> ...they just sold Linux running on an S/390 to a scandinavian
>> telecomm provider...
>
>That poor telecom company...
Yes, they should have bought Win2k Datacenter Edition instead.
Spot The Flaw.
>
>> They ported db2 to linux and linux to the AS/400 and S/390,
>> so someone at IBM must think well of it...
>>
>> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
>
>This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
You mean Windows has a builtin auto-measurement-unit converter?
Wow.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random expression of sarcasm here
EAC code #191 5d:21h:47m actually running Linux.
Darn. Just when this message was getting good, too.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: 16 Jan 2001 20:08:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: You certainly mean "Linux replace Windows" - windows is already here, it's
: entrenched. The new kid on the block is Linux, [...snip]
Not for servers. It was quite clear he was talking about servers.
For servers, Windows is more of a newcomer than Linux (although I
suppose Linux is actually younger, but it gains a lot of
"entrenchment" for free by being a UNIX clone.).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:31:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 16 Jan 2001 00:47:43 GMT
<9405nf$6v7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> In alt.destroy.microsoft, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on 15 Jan 2001 14:41:06 GMT
>> <93v262$69g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> [snip]
>
>>>Plainly:
>>>
>>>Cost of a 4 machine, quad processor W2K cluster, including licensing for
>>>all software nessesary to serve websites that contain lots of fun doohickeys
>>>like "cold fusion":
>>>
>>>180,000 dollars
>>>
>>>Cost of 4 machine, quad processor linux cluster that does the same thing:
>>>
>>>110,000 dollars.
>
>> $70,000 diff in NRA&E.
>
>> But I'm curious as to what the disk and network interfaces are.
>> I'd hope the disks are SCSI and the network a high-quality DMA-capable
>> 1 Gb network card -- or whatever the best is now,
>
>Exactly...I dont want to go into too much detail, but the hardware is
>not *exactly* identical; the w2k system is something that is pretty much
>industry standard for such things, the linux cluster is a combination of
>many vendors, taking the best from each.
Ah.
>
>> but I have my doubts
>> that IDE can handle heavy I/O loads without slowing down everything.
>> There are also issues as to how much RAM such a machine has, and
>> the bandwidth costs.
>
>This includes 1 netapp for the linux cluster and 1 "RAID o' Drives" for
>W2K. :)
>
>> (I'd also hope the hardware is as near identical as possible. :-) )
>
>Not exactly; the linux hardware is better. :)
It's certainly better performing. :-)
>
>> (BTW: is there a yearly licensing fee for Win2k?
>
>This depends very much on the apps running.
>
>> Also, why is
>> each NTadmin paid $80K? Are they in higher demand?)
>
>MCSE's demand a higher salary than non MCSE's; this accounts for that
>certification at least. It also accounts for administrators that are
>at least formidable at creating com objects and windows programming in
>general.
>
>The Linux admins need to know some perl, some shell scripting, and
>preferably a little C++.
>
>>>
>>>Number of high traffic, complex, full of frills websites that the W2K
>>>cluster can support:
>>>
>>>1900.
>>>
>>>Number of high traffic, complex, full of frills websites that the linux
>>>cluster can support:
>>>
>>>24,000.
>
>> Impressive.
>
>Other UNICES can do better. You should see the Solaris specs. :)
>
>>>
>>>Yearly revenue generated by 1900 W2K sites:
>>>
>>>3.42 million dollars
>
>> Revenue: $1800 per site
>> NRA&E: $94.73 per site
>> Support: $126.32 per site
>> Theoretical profit: $1578.95 per site.
>
>I kept profits out of this whole thing on purpose, I cannot comment on
>the accuracy of the above...:)
I did say "theoretical". Obviously there are a lot of factors.
>
>>>
>>>This is based on personal experience and the experience of 5 collegues
>>>in the field.
>>>
>>>Do the math. With what todays market is doing (which is dying a slow,
>>>horrible death), the choice is quite clear.
>
>> Just for completeness: is this documented somewhere?
>
>Yes, but not publically. I understand that what I typed could possibly
>be seen as (if not a large exaggeration) a complete lie; and theres
>nothing I can do about that. Though those people who have experience
>with these kinds of things (from both ends), in my experience, tell
>similar stories.
>
>> I don't dispute the numbers too much (I've heard horrible things
>> regarding NT's latency; this has to affect performance), but just
>> wondering if there's a formal case study for all this; "[your]
>> personal experience and the experience of 5 [of your] colleagues"
>> isn't horribly authoritative. :-)
>
>Agreed. But in this case it cannot be, since I work in the field. :)
>
>> This is, after all, a sort of benchmark.
>
>Sort of. Its more meant to get people to go find out for themselves
>than anything else.
>
>When it comes right down to it, experientially, windows costs ALOT more
>to build and run. ALOT more. In EVERY way. :)
One does wonder.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random cost factor here
EAC code #191 5d:22h:21m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:32:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:15:11 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on 14 Jan 2001 20:39:41 GMT
>> <93t2qd$gob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Let me know when you can run w2k on a 244 node S/390 cluster.
>>
>> Would www.bochs.com work? :-)
>
>
>"The site www.bochs.com runs Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_perl/1.21
>PHP/3.0.16 mod_ssl/2.6.0 OpenSSL/0.9.5 on Linux."
Heh...no, I mean, one could run bochs on an S/390, emulating an x86
which would then run Win2k.
(Why anyone would do that other than to prove a point is beyond me.)
>
>--
>Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random pointy-haired dome here
EAC code #191 5d:23h:24m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:36:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:51:23 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:23:28 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >What did you expect from windows?
>> >
>> >BTW I just went there with Netscape and its all good....
>> >
>> >The show link works with either mpg123 or xmms -
>>
>> You were able to view the trailers in QT4 format under Linux?
>>
>
>I have no idea what you're talking about -
Linux doesn't have Quicktime decoders, as I understand it; this makes
playing certain movie trailers (among them, "Antitrust", which is
purportedly about the free software movement AFAIK) problematical.
Flatfish++ and Chad are having mounds of fun with this concept,
and it does appear to be a minor (very minor) credibility issue.
>
>jjs
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:23h:27m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:38:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 15 Jan 2001 16:42:32 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> pip wrote:
>>
>> > There is a big difference between choosing the wrong run-level and
>> > not having simple tools installed! On some options under mandrake
>> > it assumes that you don't need to install a ftp server of telnet server
>> > and these tools are *very* handy when setting up a Linux boxen!
>>
>> And the options aren't made very clear, I think.
>
>I wish NT had runlevels. You can choose between "run everything" and
>"run nothing"; not very nice.
OK, so it has 2 runlevels. What, you need more? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- wondering if Linux has more than about 8 runlevels
(most distributions have 0, 1-5, and 6 [halt]; what
about 7, 8, and 9?)
EAC code #191 5d:23h:29m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:49:58 -0600
"Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a646c23.341957648@news...
> I didn't believe them, so I went ahead and ordered the service. The
> company offer free installation, so a 'techie' arrived at my house
> with all the equipment ready to install. I asked him if he would
> connect it to the Linux server, but he refused, so I let him connect
> it to one of the Windows PCs. He then proceeded to do the network
> setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
> connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
45 minutes? What did he do? You already had the PC on your local network,
right? All that should have been necessary was to plug the cable modem in
(assuming it's an ethernet one) and turn on DHCP and reboot. If it wasn't
on the network, then you'd have to install the network card and configure
it, which of course could take some time but nowhere near 45 minutes.
> As soon as he left, I unplugged the modem from the Windows PC and
> plugged it into the Linux PC. In Linux I simply ran dhcpcd and named,
> et voila, it was connected. Less that a minute and no reboots.
About the same thing.
> It took another half hour or so to configure the Windows PCs to route
> through the Linux server to the internet (and both had to be
> rebooted).
What were you doing? All you had to do is set the default gateway to the
Linux PC. The majority of your configuration would be to get ip
masquerading working on the Linux server (which shouldn't require a reboot,
unless your kernel was compiled without IPMASQ support).
> It took maybe as much as 30 minutes to write a quick ipchains script
> to firewall the system.
Was that 30 minutes of your 45 minutes?
> With such an incredibly simple process, why do ISPs refuse point blank
> to support Linux? Is it a fear of the unknown? A false assumption that
> 'it's Linux so it must be difficult'? Surely it can't be that
> expensive to send a few techies on a basic Linux networking course?
Wait till their network goes down. You'll call into their technical support
department, and they'll force you to reconnect to the Windows PC so their
front line script readers can walk you through figuring out that it's their
problem.
------------------------------
From: "Chris Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:46:26 -0500
Its probably the same as why Linux is spreading so slowly in general,
which boils down to one or more of the following:
1. Stupidity
2. Ignorance
3. Greed (as in "supporting Linux generates less revenue that Windows")
4. Timidity
5. Laziness
Actually, as for your ISP, reason number 3 doesn't count - they are
in business to make money after all.
"Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:3a646c23.341957648@news...
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to offer a small story to illustrate how some things are much
> easier using Linux.
>
> I recently subscribed to a cable modem service. When I spoke to the
> customer service drone on the telephone, I asked if they supported
> Linux. They said absolutely not, the modem probably won't work with
> Linux, and they offer no support even if it does.
>
> I didn't believe them, so I went ahead and ordered the service. The
> company offer free installation, so a 'techie' arrived at my house
> with all the equipment ready to install. I asked him if he would
> connect it to the Linux server, but he refused, so I let him connect
> it to one of the Windows PCs. He then proceeded to do the network
> setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
> connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
>
> As soon as he left, I unplugged the modem from the Windows PC and
> plugged it into the Linux PC. In Linux I simply ran dhcpcd and named,
> et voila, it was connected. Less that a minute and no reboots.
>
> It took another half hour or so to configure the Windows PCs to route
> through the Linux server to the internet (and both had to be
> rebooted).
>
> It took maybe as much as 30 minutes to write a quick ipchains script
> to firewall the system.
>
> With such an incredibly simple process, why do ISPs refuse point blank
> to support Linux? Is it a fear of the unknown? A false assumption that
> 'it's Linux so it must be difficult'? Surely it can't be that
> expensive to send a few techies on a basic Linux networking course?
>
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
