Linux-Advocacy Digest #565, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 01:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Mandrake in VMware in Windows 2000 - HELP! ("rnwalker")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Definition: Desktop, Workstation, Server. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K (Charlie Ebert)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Tom Wilson")
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? ("kiwiunixman")
Re: "Basing the new supercomputers on Linux was a no-brainer..." ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "rnwalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "rnwalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake in VMware in Windows 2000 - HELP!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:12:14 GMT
Well now, if this newsgroup the biggest waste of intellect I've seen in some
time. Aaron, are you sure you aren't depriving some small village in
Scotland of their idiot?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> rnwalker wrote:
> >
> > I ran the setup program that came with VMware 2.0.3. After that, I
entered
> > my personal licence. From there I clicked START -> Programs ->
VMware ->
> > VMware.
> >
>
> Well NO FUCKING WONDER.... you're running on top of Microshit Neutered
Technology.
>
> Hint. Microshit Neutered Technology is exactly that...NEUTERED
TECHNOLOGY.
>
> Therefore, it should be NO FUCKING SURPRISE when anything running on top
> of Neutered Technology acts just as flaky.
>
>
> Try Linux as the base system, and use VMware to run LoseNT.
>
> Trust me, it will be WAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.
>
>
> > Is this a trick question or are you just being part of my nightmare?
> > (grin!!)
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > rnwalker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am pulling my hair out trying to get Linus Mandrake to run!
> > > >
> > > > I installed VMware 2.03 inside my Windows 2000 box, 128mb, PIII 500,
> > ADSL,
> > > > D-Link card. This is a stand-alone system in my home.
> > > > I have installed Redhat twice and gave up on that. Tonight I did 2
> > installs
> > > > of Mandrake 7.2 and I am ready to scream.
> > > >
> > > > First, during the install, it asked for the second CD and rejected
that.
> > I
> > > > extracted the files from the ISO and burned them so maybe that is
the
> > > > problem and I can live with that. When it asked for the 2nd CD, I
hit
> > > > cancel and the install continued.
> > > >
> > > > When we got to the network part I said I had ADSL and the install
> > started
> > > > doing its thing. It got to the network card and gave me the
following
> > error
> > > > "insmod'ing module lance failed at /usr/bin/perl-Install/modules.pm
line
> > 479
> > > > No Ethernet adapter has been detected on your system". Bridging is
> > enabled
> > > > in VMware and running in services.
> > > >
> > > > During setup it asked for a root pasword and confirmation. I gave
it
> > > > "catlove". It then asked for a user and I gave it "meesha" as the
user
> > and
> > > > "catlove" again as the password. I hit "accept user" and then done.
> > > >
> > > > The install said it could automatically log one user on at startup
so I
> > > > selected "meesha".
> > > >
> > > > After reboot, it waits about 3 minutes at "starting ADSL". It asks
for
> > a
> > > > login that it was suppose to do automatically. I give it meesha /
> > catlove
> > > > and it logs me in and sits at the root prompt in text mode.
> > > >
> > > > What happened to this fancy interface? Is this VMware that is
causing
> > my
> > > > troubles or Mandrake? Any help would be appreciated. I am sure as
soon
> > as
> > > > I get this going, my problems will only have just started!
> > >
> > > If you can't get Linux to run...how did you install VMware?
> > >
> > > By the way, Mandrake is practically foolproof.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > > ICQ # 3056642
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> 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: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:10:47 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KZY86.1680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:OZP86.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:DQC86.3397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:a9y86.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:Yfp86.2938$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find backdoors.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with thousands
of
> > people
> > > > > > > looking at the source code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Per my other post, there are exactly 35 developers on the
Firebird
> > > > project.
> > > > > > Some of them have joined relatively recently. SourceForge
shows
> > that
> > > > no one
> > > > > > has downloaded their pre-release kits yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your "thousands of people" are as vaprous as closed-source
security
> > is.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what about the thousands who supposedly review Linux. From
> > > > developers,
> > > > > to watchdog groups, to tinkerers, you'd think most of the obvious
> > bugs
> > > > would
> > > > > be flushed out immediately. However, every shipping Linux release
> > from
> > > > > all major distributors still comes riddled with security exploits
not
> > to
> > > > > mention all other bugs. If Open Source is so superior, and all
this
> > > > > peer review actually happens as you people say, then how are
these
> > > > glaring
> > > > > bugs slipping through so frequently?
> > > >
> > > > Its' impossible for all bugs to be rooted out of a large software
> > project.
> > > > Only the most glaring and obvious show up quickly. It takes time
for
> > the
> > > > more subtle ones to present themselves. With open source, the
option
> > exists
> > > > to patch them as they come along as opposed to placing a bug report
> > with a
> > > > vendor and counting on them to actually heed it and provide a patch
in
> > a
> > > > timely manner (or in some cases at all).
> > >
> > > So basically you're saying that Open Source offers no advantage for
large
> > > projects? This is basically what I've been saying all along.
> >
> > No, I'm pointing out something that should be obvious - There's no
perfect
> > system. I, indeed pointed out an advantage to open source, though. You
> > neglected to quote the whole response.
>
> You may not be saying that OSS is perfect, but others are implying that.
> They are implying that OSS is superior to everything else and that there
> is NO reason why you WOULDN'T want to use OSS.
As I pointed out earlier, they have some very compelling reasons for
feeling that way. I guess the marketplace will eventually determine who's
"right". I just know what works for me. I'm still forced to do Windows
based development because I'd be stupid to turn my back on the money. It
still, obviously, has its' place. That place just doesn't happen to be on
my servers.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:13:18 GMT
If you have to reinstall Windows NT or 2000 more than a few times when
"something" goes wrong, you are an incompetent administrator.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9481dp$8c0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Lewis Miller wrote:
> >>
> >>We're talking about workstations here. I wouldn't trust IIS on ANYTHING
> >>that even closely classified as "enterprise". Or do you have another
> >>definition of "workstation"?
> >
> >Right, but we're talking about Linux. Linux is a server OS. Through and
> >through. So that's why we keep coming back to this point. Workstations be
> >damned. you have a problem with a workstation, you don't even try to fix
> >it. You grab the image file off the server and reimage the machine. Bam
> >it's just like new. That's how to fix a Windows workstation.
> >
> >
>
> The point made here for the CLUELESS is that Windows spent the
> time to make their REINSTALL effortless. WHY you ASK?
>
> Because you HAVE to re-install Windows MANY times over the life
> of your MACHINE. That's because Windows is a peice of shit!
>
> Linux is always, install it once, use it, upgrade it when
> upgrades are available, but you never have to re-install it
> unless you've just lost your hardware.
>
> Or your mind.
>
> Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:11:53 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What's so obsessive about it? It's no different than the various
> sites out there specifically dedicated to similar tweaks for
> WinDOS. He probably spent less time setting this up than the
> average WinNovice takes downloading and installing a single
> themepack.
The fact that the END USER has taken the time, and effort to perform the
task of programming to accomplish such an insignifigtant task of rotating
the desktop background. Seems a tad obsessive.
>
> >
> >"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:r5a96.88700$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> > I have a script that runs xmoon, refreshing every 120 seconds,
> >> > and then 60 seconds later, runs xearth, refreshing every 120 seconds.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > making a dynamic desktop :-)
> >>
> >> This sounds a tad obsessive to me.
>
> --
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition: Desktop, Workstation, Server.
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:17:13 GMT
"Bones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <XjV86.428$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I always considered a workstation to be a desktop tied to a server or
> > otherwise participating in a network.
> > Hmmm, anyone up for a silly semantics war ? :)
>
> Sure, I've always held that 'desktop' merely describes a physical
property
> of the computer in question. If it fits on your desktop, then its a
"desktop
> computer". Other sizes would be microcomputer (essentially the same as a
> desktop or laptop), minicomputer and mainframe.
Works for me. The wag in me is wont to think the a desktop is big flat
thing you sit the stuff on.
>
> If I were to segregate computers by role, I would pick stand-alone,
> workstation and server as the categories. I attach nothing in terms of
> expected reliability or user interface to any of these roles. They should
> all by rock-solid reliable, and flexible enough to trim down unneeded
junk
> if extra power is needed for offering services.
I still think workstation denotes a singular place on a network where
applications are developed or executed. I guess it doesn't matter since you
say either "dekstop" or "workstation" and cause the same mental image of a
CPU box, display, and keyboard.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:28:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:08:23 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Fl
>>It's called supply and demand.
>
>Yep.
>Some asshole at Dell decided to build 1000 of these Linux boxes
>because he figured Linux is big and people will want these boxes.
>
As Mr. Dell put it, USER DEMAND dictated he would.
It wasn't Mike's decision. The customers just told him to.
>>Purchasers are WILLING TO PAY $64 more for Linux than Windows.
>
>They couldn't find 50 people willing to purchase one, so they had to
>raise the price to make up the loss.
>
Not true.
>>He heh heheheheh
>
>Joke is on thepoor sucker who buys one....
>Especially when he calls support, which he paid for, and hears dead
>silence at the end of the phone.
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
You better cash in that Microsoft stock your holding.
I think your hanny is getting warm.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:29:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >I suspect you don't care (or perhaps already know?), but if you'd like to
>> >stop scandisk coming up just because the machine crashed, you can add
>> >Autoscan=0
>> >to your MSDOS.SYS file under the [Options] heading. Alternatively, you
>> >can install TweakUI and turn it off with that.
>>
>> Yea, you can hit a key to abort it, too, but that's not quite the best
>> idea, is it? This is Windows we're talking about.
>
>Heh.. I like to turn it off, because I get sick of hitting that key =)
>
>Win98 crashes more often than I restart it... I consider 'crashing' to
>include an intentional restart to fix resource leaks and crappy
>response... it would lead to a crash soon enough if I didn't restart it.
>
>The possibility of a corrupted filesystem doesn't really bother me too
>much, since I expect that of 98 anyway. I run scandisk every so often
>when I need to (e.g to fix the not-shutting-down problem from time to
>time).
Can you believe that Microsoft still doesn't have a decent file
system.
They don't even have the equivalent of EXT2 yet.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 19 Jan 2001 05:32:30 GMT
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:55:27 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>It's not the compile time errors that you should be afraid of, it's all
>those nasty *run* time errors (other wise known as bugs) that should be the
>concern of any programer.
Couldn't agree more. This is why one should prefer compile time errors
to run time errors where one has the choice.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:32:40 GMT
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Tj996.88664$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:e4996.2831$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > news:tR396.84229$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Way to snip the part about this being a WORKSTATION conversation
genius.
> >
> > (Alruight then. Fair enough. Smartass mode off)
> >
> > Honest question: Do you really find crashing of even that sort
> > (Workstation) to be acceptable and do you find those who don't to be
> > unreasonable?
>
> I find that people complaining about "crashing workstations" to be
primarily
> caused by the use of Microsoft's Windows 95 & 98 operating systems.
Neither
> of which I have much respect for. As for claiming that Windows NT 4
> "bluescreens every half hour" are caused by lackluster administrative
> policies. Windows NT had stability problems, but Service pack 4 hammered
> most stability problems out, from then on it was securty problems until
6a,
> when it was discontinued in favor of 2000, which seems to be showing a
lot
> of technological advancement on Microsoft's part.
For a lot of us its' too much too little too late. You have to take into
account over a decade bitching about their spotty quality. Personally, I
don't care if Windows 2000 is the proverbial second coming of Christ and a
lot of others don't either. I've had over a decade of bad blood with the
company and I'm beyond forgiving and forgeting. I'll write apps for their
platforms because the market for them is too large to ignore, but beyond
that, I'm not giving them the time of day. No OS of theirs will ever touch
one of my servers. From what they charge for their lisencing, I expect a
massive performance increase over their competition. That certainly isn't
the case though, is it? With a small bit of work, a next to free
alternative can be made to either meet or trounce WinNT/2000's performace
on most every level. Only a true MS fan or a complete idiot would choose to
spend the extra money.
>
> Even then, when something crashes, it crashes, and the reset switch is
just
> around the corner. I've seen Linux lock up, I've seen Windows lock up.
It
> stops responding, you hit reset. It's a workstation, I think someone can
> wait two, or three minutes to resume their work.
On a lighter note, some of us have a trains of thought similar to Amtrak.
Derailing with the slightest provocation. Also, I'm never complacent when
knocked out of deep hack mode by an OS failure.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:33:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> ...perhaps even Datacenter.
>
Wintrolls brandish this word like a 5 year old triumphantly
parades around his parents empty house with a loaded .357
Clearly, the words Data and Microsoft don't mix well.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:44:11 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UCh96.4223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:zX896.2827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:KZY86.1680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:OZP86.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:DQC86.3397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:a9y86.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:Yfp86.2938$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find
backdoors.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with
thousands of
> > > > people
> > > > > > > > > looking at the source code.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Per my other post, there are exactly 35 developers on the
> > Firebird
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > Some of them have joined relatively recently. SourceForge
shows
> > > > that
> > > > > > no one
> > > > > > > > has downloaded their pre-release kits yet.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your "thousands of people" are as vaprous as closed-source
> > security
> > > > is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But what about the thousands who supposedly review Linux.
From
> > > > > > developers,
> > > > > > > to watchdog groups, to tinkerers, you'd think most of the
obvious
> > > > bugs
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be flushed out immediately. However, every shipping Linux
release
> > > > from
> > > > > > > all major distributors still comes riddled with security
exploits
> > not
> > > > to
> > > > > > > mention all other bugs. If Open Source is so superior, and
all
> > this
> > > > > > > peer review actually happens as you people say, then how are
these
> > > > > > glaring
> > > > > > > bugs slipping through so frequently?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Its' impossible for all bugs to be rooted out of a large
software
> > > > project.
> > > > > > Only the most glaring and obvious show up quickly. It takes
time for
> > > > the
> > > > > > more subtle ones to present themselves. With open source, the
option
> > > > exists
> > > > > > to patch them as they come along as opposed to placing a bug
report
> > > > with a
> > > > > > vendor and counting on them to actually heed it and provide a
patch
> > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > timely manner (or in some cases at all).
> > > > >
> > > > > So basically you're saying that Open Source offers no advantage
for
> > large
> > > > > projects? This is basically what I've been saying all along.
> > > >
> > > > No, I'm pointing out something that should be obvious - There's no
> > perfect
> > > > system. I, indeed pointed out an advantage to open source, though.
You
> > > > neglected to quote the whole response.
> > >
> > > You may not be saying that OSS is perfect, but others are implying
that.
> > > They are implying that OSS is superior to everything else and that
there
> > > is NO reason why you WOULDN'T want to use OSS.
> >
> > To put it in a more rational light, there are many compelling reasons
for
> > chosing OSS over CSS. And those have been discussed, shouted,
filibustered,
> > grunted, flamed, and what-not ad-infinitum. IMO, CSS's only advantage
is
> > stricter control and less deviation from a set standard. The fewer
cooks at
> > the pot thing. Again, IMO, that alone isn't enough to justify it.
> > Particularly when it comes to the CSS OS we oft discuss around here.
>
> OTOH, there's no compelling reason for OSS. The stated advantages are oft
> never realized (peer review, greater security, better design, etc).
> Particularly when it comes to the OSS OS we oft discuss around here.
If that were the case it wouldn't be running on so many servers and we
wouldn't be bickering about its' benefits/non-benefits.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:45:41 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:03:32 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:zX896.2827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:KZY86.1680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:OZP86.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [deletia]
> >> To put it in a more rational light, there are many compelling reasons
for
> >> chosing OSS over CSS. And those have been discussed, shouted,
filibustered,
> >> grunted, flamed, and what-not ad-infinitum. IMO, CSS's only advantage
is
> >> stricter control and less deviation from a set standard. The fewer
cooks at
> >> the pot thing. Again, IMO, that alone isn't enough to justify it.
> >> Particularly when it comes to the CSS OS we oft discuss around here.
> >
> >OTOH, there's no compelling reason for OSS. The stated advantages are
oft
> >never realized (peer review, greater security, better design, etc).
> >Particularly when it comes to the OSS OS we oft discuss around here.
>
> ...except when it comes to commodity supercomputing in
> academia and the oil industry... <snicker>
I'll not even mention the Web server thing....<chortle>
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:54:00 GMT
In NZ we don't have any tax returns (if you are use the tax code R). Hence,
no problems here
kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 19 Jan 2001 03:15:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
> >fl
> >Actually, im staring at this using tin in an Xterm, I'm happily playing
> >one of my 5500 mp3s with winamp (with a nice kjofol skin), I'm writing
> >up a report for work with Abiword, and im compiling the latest glibc
> >so I can get cool themes with gkrellm.
>
> Too bad your newsreader can't thread articles.
>
> >> I've seen MVS/XA systems stay up for years. Am I going to balance my
> >> taxes on one?
> >
> >1. no you havent, the guy who writes your posts for you has though.
>
> You must some kind of real idiot....
>
> What does dm do?
> How about du ?
> v path?
> v device?
> ds p,
>
> would you like more?
>
>
>
> >2. some of us balance our taxes without the need for a computer, and
> > its much, much faster.
>
> I'll bet Uncle Sam loves you....
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Basing the new supercomputers on Linux was a no-brainer..."
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:55:10 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >sfcybear wrote:
> >
> >> "Basing the new supercomputers on Linux was a no-brainer, Reed said,
> >> because the platform provides users with a familiar computing
> >> environment that covers single-user desktop workstations and small
> >> research clusters to the largest systems."
> >
> >You can bet that Linux's inroads on the desktop are deepest in the
> >fields of science and engineering, and getting deeper there every day.
> >Businesses will lag along more slowly.
> >
>
> This could be BETTER said as business are pathetic followers.
> Where ever the cattle troff leads them they will go.
>
> They are not leaders of anything.
They are of MS's bottom line, perhaps <g>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
