Linux-Advocacy Digest #461, Volume #32 Sun, 25 Feb 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft stricks again: Why is Media Player 7 so slooow, so heavy? (Brent
Pathakis)
Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! (Brent Pathakis)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Rex Ballard)
Re: RTFM at M$ (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (B'ichela)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Carl Fink)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brent Pathakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft stricks again: Why is Media Player 7 so slooow, so heavy?
Crossposted-To:
alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,microsoft.public.multimedia.windows.mediaplayer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:40:23 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> "Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
> >
> > Well-argued, and I thank you. But to claim that Microsoft doesn't face
> > competition, or that consumers lack choice, is just plain daft.
>
> First, take a read of these Findings of Fact re MSFT:
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
>
> Second, consider this list of consumer computer/OS choices around 1985:
>
> IBM-PC/MS-DOS
> IBM-PC/DR-DOS
> Apple-II/(it's OS)
> Apple-MacIntosh/MacOS
> Commodore-64 and VIC-20
> Commodore-Amiga/AmigaDOS
> Atari 800XL and numerous other models
> Atari-ST/GEM/TOS
> TRS-80/TRS-DOS
>
> I don't know when Minix got started, and can't remember exactly when
> Microsoft's failed Xenix experiment took place, and of course there
> were a larger number of smaller combinations that I just never
> experienced. What do we have today?
>
> Intel-compatibles running a wide range of Windows OS's
> Mac machines with MacOS and OS-X
> Intel-compatibles with prepackaged Linux distros.
>
> I'm leaving off the Amigas, Ataris, etc. which still exist in small
> numbers.
>
> Applications? Remember Wordperfect, Quattro Pro, Ami, Lotus 1-2-3?
> Deep discounts in the early days of Word, MultiPlan... er, I mean
> Excel, etc. caused many of us to migrate to these reasonably capable
> products. And there was some stupid behavior on the part of some
> of these competitors, too. So, Microsoft now dominates the office
> applications market, too. No more cheap office software, just take
> a look in any PC catalog.
>
> Obviously, quite a bit has changed. The two biggest changes are:
>
> 1. Microsoft bought the loyalty of computer OEM's with
> deep discounts shown to be illegal (like the Japanese
> chip-dumping a few years ago).
>
> 2. Consumer computers have become powerful enough to handle
> UNIX.
>
> Ironically, Microsoft has shafted itself by forcing consumers into
> a never-ending upgrade cycle. Richard Stallman and his ilk have
> made an analysis of the situation worthy of the Crimosoft hegemony,
> and their philosophy is now the only one presently immune to deep
> discounts and OEM non-disclosure agreements. Everyone else made
> the mistake of thinking that a free market still existed, and they
> paid the price.
>
> > I see new releases of Linux given away from free of PC Magazine covers
> > every
> > month. Even if my new PC gets delivered with Windows pre-installed on
> > it,
> > it's not hard to find and acquire free O/Ses elsewhere. Why aren't all
> > these poor, hard-put-upon users simply typing in 'format c:\' and then
> > loading linux? It wouldn't be because most people these days wouldn't
> > even know what 'format c:\' actually *meant* these days, would it?
>
> Imagine that Linux was on top, installed by default on every machine.
> You've only used Linux, and you know it well enough to run Star Office,
> XMMS,
> Netscape, the GNOME GUI, etc. But you don't know anything about HD
> parameters, dd, mkfs, fdisk, fips, parted, or any of that down'n'dirty
> stuff because your computer vendor does all that for you.
>
> Now you see a Windows magazine with a free CD. Windows 2000 Advanced
> Server, which claims to be as full of features as Linux and more
> reliable. Are you even curious about it? Maybe not -- you can do your
> word-processing, browsing, e-mail, scanning, etc. just fine with
> Linux. Let us even postulate that you have some minor hiccups using
> Linux. You're used to them, and you put up with them. That Windows
> CD in the magazine is a big unknown. You've heard it's good, but you've
> got the following hurdles:
>
> o You only have one machine at home
> o You don't know how this dual-boot stuff works or even
> what it means
> o You don't have any Windows friends nearby to help you
> should you make a bad mistake
>
> This scenario is by far the most common one (reversing back to today's
> true situation). Therefore, those free CDs are almost no
> competition to Windows. In fact, the prepacked, pricey ($30 !!!)
> Linux distros are probably more competition.
> >
> > I'm an IT professional, and have been for years. The first time I ever
> > installed Linux, it took me 30 minutes to get my modem working, and I
> > never
> > did quite get round to getting the printer to print. At that time,
> > Windows 95 or 98 (I forget which) could be installed in 35 minutes, and
> > the modem
> > and printer worked fine, first time. Which do you think provided the
> > better
> > user-experience, regardless of technical merits? *That's* why Microsoft
> > dominates its market, not because of some deep, dark dirty shenanigans
> > it's
> > been carrying out. But because the damn stuff works out of the box with
> > minimal hassle.
>
> I get quite a few requests for help from people who have problems with
> Windows operating systems. Also, one time I made the mistake of buying
> an HP 820Cse for my NT system. It took hours of research and trials to
> get that brain-dead Win-printer working, and that was only because
> Hewlett-Packard itself provided an NT driver for it.
>
> To be truthful, you are right about the consumer end. Win 95/98/ME still
> offer
> generally fewer problems to the consumer computer newbie. But many people
> who use NT or 2000 find that Linux is no more difficult to set up and use,
> and offers much greater flexibility and internal access, and a wider range
> of tools and tweaks, than Windows. Even in that domain, though, Windows
> still has a significant advantage built from its competition-squashing
> behavior.
>
> There is a third domain, the server domain, where the real ugly battle is
> still going on. Windows still has a ways to go, and the tide has shifted
> back toward the UNIX's (both the free ones and the proprietary one),
> because the NT server does not stand up well to the same kinds of usage a
> UNIX box can handle.
>
> Microsoft is working hard to win the server market, but their reputation
> and the
> facts about their stability and security problems still persist.
> Personally,
> I want both OS's to continue to battle. Otherwise, stasis will ensue.
> But, unless Microsoft keeps improving, they will never win the server
> battle. People may buy them, but tire of the endless upgrade cycles, OS
> churn, inflexibility, personnel costs, and instability.
>
> > Any other O/S I've ever worked with has been one hell of a
> > learning curve -and most people just don't need to go through that in
> > order
> > to be able to do productive work. (There is one exception to that,
> > actually, which is BEOS -works like a charm out of the box, and is a
> > delight
> > to use. Unfortunately, nothing runs on it... but hey! You can't have
> > everything!!)
>
> Coming from a DOS world, running Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98,
> Windows NT, and now Windows 2000 has been a hell of a learning curve,
> spread over the
> course of 15 years in my life. Linux has also been a learning curve, but
> it has been a lot more FUN. Why? Because although Microsoft marketing
> had led me to expect easy install experiences, that rarely happened. I
> know Linux
> can be tough. And I willingly cut Linux some slack because it is written
> by the people, for the people, so to speak. I expect a $500 office suite
> written by Microsoft to be absolutely bug-free at this stage in its
> life-cycle, but it is not. It is littered with bugs and compatibility
> problems. I'm not going to spend that kind of money on my home machine
> anymore. I'd rather struggle and learn something, than struggle and
> never learn anything.
>
> > Your experiences with Excel and Word sound most unfortunate. It simply
> > hasn't happened to me, and I can't think of anyone of my acquaintance to
> > whom it's happened either.
>
> Perhaps you've not yet hit the threshold of your computer's RAM yet. When
> you do, every Windows OS I know, including Win 2000 Pro, exhibits some
> very crappy behavior.
>
> > But let's leave it there, shall we. Clearly we won't agree. I think
> > it's horses for courses; you seem to be saying I must buy a thoroughbred
> > every time.
>
> No, he's not saying that, though it is nice that you think of Linux
> as a thoroughbred. He simply wants a computer that has decent security,
> functionally correct and robust memory management, a decent TCP/IP
> implementation, at a reasonable cost. Buying Microsoft is like viewing
> a sequence of ho-hum videos, and keeping it up because you keep thinking,
> "This one sucked. Maybe the next one will be cool."
>
> Chris
>>snip>>
Microsoft is working hard to win the server market, but their reputation
and
the
facts about their stability and security problems still persist.
Personally,
I want both OS's to continue to battle. Otherwise, stasis will ensue.
But, unless Microsoft keeps improving, they will never win the server
battle.
People may buy them, but tire of the endless upgrade cycles, OS churn,
inflexibility, personnel costs, and instability.
>>
A note on the server market, especially the high eng.
One reasaon MS is still struggling there, other than the obvious, is that
it is still basically a Intel based platform and Intel servers still have
serious limitations.
MS really has no one to blame but themselves on this one. Technically,
there's no reason why Win OS's couldn't be ported to more platforms, but
their Eula makes it nightmare legally...and if you do manage get past the
legal issues, what's to keep MS from losing interest halfway thru the
project and bailing out.
Wiht unix like os's (esp. certain open source ones), the only obstacles are
technical one.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:50:10 -0600
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Solaris is also based on GPL software. There's more GPL'd code in
Solaris
> >than there is in Windows.
>
> This ought to be verifiable, since the Solaris source is available
> under a "community source" license (which does not meet the Open
> Source Definition).
>
> You may be thinking of the BSD license; I've read that Solaris is a
> BSD derivative.
Correct. Actually, I meant BSD license. The software that's available in
NT like ftp have code from BSD, and it's available by looking at the binary
image.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:51:13 -0600
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Trolltech's QT for instance is both licensed under the GPL and under
their
> >proprietray license. That doesn't mean if I purachase a proprietary
license
> >from them that I have to also follow the GPL.
>
> The whole point of the proprietary license is that you can release a
> binary without following the GPL.
Exactly. Rex was trying to claim that since NCSA released Mosaic under a
free license, that MS must abide by that license, despite that fact that
NCSA licensed Spyglass with a non-free license.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:54:53 -0600
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Erik,
>
> > MS has already stated in several places, including the Whistler SDK
> > (available online freely to anyone) that the theming API's would not be
> > released. The reason, is that they want to ensure that all themes
> > follow the basic windows UI guidelines.
> >
> > I'm sure MS will license the theme SDK to developers that agree to abide
> > by UI guidelines and certify the themes, but that won't happen till at
> > least the release of whistler.
>
> I appreciate the confirmation that Microsoft will not be releasing the
> theming APIs.
>
> I was silly enough to think that Microsoft no longer practiced hiding API
> specifications from the public and developers.
All OS's have unpublished API's, including Linux. You can find all kinds of
API's that are inside the kernel but do not appear in man pages because
they're intended to be used internally inside the kernel itself without a
published interface.
Where someone like MS would get in trouble is if their apps, like office
used those API's to their advantage, and nobody has yet proved this to be
the case. Andrew Schulman published a book years ago called Undocumented
Windows which exposed MS's use of hidden API's in 16 bit versions of Office,
but also proved that using those API's gave them no advantage. Most of it
was left over from the Windows 2.x days.
------------------------------
From: Brent Pathakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:50:00 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi Erik,
> >
> > > MS has already stated in several places, including the Whistler SDK
> > > (available online freely to anyone) that the theming API's would not
> > > be
> > > released. The reason, is that they want to ensure that all themes
> > > follow the basic windows UI guidelines.
> > >
> > > I'm sure MS will license the theme SDK to developers that agree to
> > > abide by UI guidelines and certify the themes, but that won't happen
> > > till at least the release of whistler.
> >
> > I appreciate the confirmation that Microsoft will not be releasing the
> > theming APIs.
> >
> > I was silly enough to think that Microsoft no longer practiced hiding
> > API specifications from the public and developers.
>
> All OS's have unpublished API's, including Linux. You can find all kinds
> of API's that are inside the kernel but do not appear in man pages because
> they're intended to be used internally inside the kernel itself without a
> published interface.
>
> Where someone like MS would get in trouble is if their apps, like office
> used those API's to their advantage, and nobody has yet proved this to be
> the case. Andrew Schulman published a book years ago called Undocumented
> Windows which exposed MS's use of hidden API's in 16 bit versions of
> Office,
> but also proved that using those API's gave them no advantage. Most of it
> was left over from the Windows 2.x days.
>
>
>
--snip
All OS's have unpublished API's, including Linux. You can find all kinds of
API's that are inside the kernel but do not appear in man pages because
they're intended to be used internally inside the kernel itself without a
published interface.
--
You're miising a point here....at least with Linux you have the source
code, whether or not it's not the man pages.
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:49:36 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What makes this article particularely amusing is that they are touting
the superiourity
of IIS on NT 4.0 over a bunch of no-name web servers on UNIX systems.
Microsoft even admits that it lost the performance race and tried to
make Windows 2000 much faster
and more reliable to make "real-world" performance 10% faster than Linux
2.2.17-21.
Microsoft will not publish industry standard benchmarks between
comparably equipped
Microsoft Windows systems and Linux systems. Furthermore, even though
IBM has now
sanctioned an official Linux product, there is still no TPC benchmark.
Unofficial
numbers place the Linux numbers at 1/3 of Microsoft's "agressive"
estimates of
$9-13/TPM. Microsoft has had to withdraw several results when it became
obvious that
they understated 5-year system costs. Furthermore, most of Microsoft's
benchmarks
were conducted under unrealistic configurations (using Raid 0,
nonpersistent messages,
and COM+ as the transaction monitor).
This was compared to more consistent real-world reliable systems. To
put it simply,
in real-world environments, Microsoft isn't more expensive. Microsoft's
costs do
increase linearly, while UNIX costs/tpm actually drop as performance
increases.
I'm just suprised that Ayende didn't also pull up the Mindcraft
benchmarks, or the
TCO estimates in which the analyst asserts that you need only 3 NT
Servers per 1000
users compared to a $50,000 Solaris server (similar to the Ultra 5) AND
a Netware
server (didn't know about SAMBA?). Obviously, these numbers are bogus
in light of
actual field experience. The industry average is about 35 servers/1000
users,
compared to a single Ultra 450 or H-80. An Ultra 5 or B-2 sells for
about $2000,
and Linux runs on exactly the same hardware but runs faster, is more
reliable,
easier to maintain and manage, and can be scripted to eliminate manual
maintainence tasks.
Windows 2000 offers several improvements (many of which I proposed on
this newsgroup),
and attempts to steal many UNIX features. Today, Microsoft suffers from
a severe
case of incompatibility. With OS/390 and nearly every version of UNIX
adhering to
standards set by Open Source software, Microsoft is getting killed for
"doing it's own
thing". Linux makes a better platform for Windows 95 applications than
Windows 2000
does. Linux adheres to the security systems used by Enterprise servers
such as OS/390
and UNIX (Secureway, LDAP). Finally, Linux can function as either a
SAMBA client or
an NFS client. Linux also supports CORBA and JAVA more effectively than
Windows 2000
(since Microsoft will be prevented from offering it's own flavors).
Microsoft argues that because they own 90% of the workstations, that
they can
introduce any standard they want, change it as often as they want, and
that
customers and OEMs must adopt everything included in whatever the latest
version
offers. Furthermore, Corporate customers are forced to accept Windows
2000 and
home users are forced to accept preinstalled Windows ME. It's really
quite ugly.
Microsoft doesn't even adhere to it's own standards.
The result is that Corporate managers are holding off for some sign of
sanity.
Microsoft has insisted on making proprietary extensions to Kerberos and
LDAP
that make it impossible to use existing corporate security systems.
This didn't
upset Windows 95 users who had to use MSCHAP to talk to NT terminal
servers, but
CTOs and CIOs get really upset when they convince management that
Windows 2000 will
enable them to have single sign-on and then end up looking incompetent
because
the Windows 2000 workstations and servers can't be authenticated and
controlled by
the corporate infrastructure already established.
Even worse, Microsoft has pushed the envelope even further by making it
impossible to
either configure for campatibility, or to replace the security system
with something
that is compatible. The result is that Windows 2000 systems can't be
integrated
into the Enterprise.
Linux is addressing these issues very effectively and even some of the
die-hard
CTOs and CIOs are taking Linux very seriously. They like the fact that
Linux security
can be tied to the corporate systems. They lake the fact that Linux
provides the
essential functions without a bunch of "toys". Linux lets CIOs and CTOs
get more
milage out of existing systems and lets them take advantage of drops in
price and
avoid price peaks that immediately follow new Microsoft OS releases.
Finally,
when systems are purchased, they can either have the OEM install Linux
for them or
have it configured at the desktop in less than an hour. Because the
dialogues are
only at the very beginning and very end of the installation procedure,
it's possible to
install 8-10 systems in less than 2 hours. Finally, since Linux can
read fat32 partitions, it's possible to save user Office documents on a
Fat32 partitions and then
view them later. Linux even makes it possible for Windows 95 programs
to access
files stored on the more secure ext2 partitions. If you really need
journaling,
you can use reisorfs. You get Windows 95 compatibility with Linux
(enterprise)
security.
Finally, Linux lowers the cost of maintanance. Whether it's a laptop on
a user's
conference room, or a server on the other end of the country, a
qualified administrator can diagnose and solve the problems from the
comfort of an easy chair or couch, without
ever getting up.
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> I've been doing some reading on Java when I encountered this article:
>
> http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_24.htm
> It's a very interesting article, on a very interesting site. But what really
> captured my attention was point three, about scalability.
> <Qoute>
> ...industry standard TPC-C benchmark. This benchmark shows that a $745,000
> COM+ system can process more than 56 million transactions per day, a higher
> rate than any documented web-based commerce system processes today. In order
> to meet this level of scalability with a UNIX system, you will have to spend
> at least $2,250,000.
> </Qoute>
>
> This is a much discussed topic on this kind of newsgroups, so I would've
> ignored it, if it didn't mentioned this as well:
> <Qoute>
> A web-based benchmark was recently conducted by Doculabs and PCWeek. [6, 7]
> This benchmark measured the number of web pages delivered to client browsers
> in a web commerce environment and the cost of the underlying hardware and
> software for both Microsoft and UNIX platforms. The Doculab report [6] is
> informative for any company planning a web commerce system.
> If we add together the hardware and software costs of the various platforms
> in the Doculabs benchmark, we find that a $208,000 Windows DNA system
> delivered 3,500 web pages per second, whereas the fastest measured UNIX
> system (a Progress system) delivered only 1,360 web pages per second at a
> cost of over $500,000. The average UNIX system cost $594,459 and delivered
> 1009 pages per second, less than one third the Windows DNA performance at
> more than two and a half times the cost.
> And these tests were run on NT 4.0. A later, different benchmark run by
> PCWeek clocked Windows 2000 at between 25% and 100% faster than Windows NT
> 4.0 [8]. If these numbers hold true for a Doculabs benchmark scenario, then
> we would expect to see a $208,000 Windows 2000 DNA system delivering
> anyplace from 4375 to 7000 pages per second, whereas a $594,459 UNIX system
> will be straining to deliver one quarter of that.
> The Doculabs benchmark predicted that in real-world scenarios, UNIX system
> web servers will be able to process over 10,000 concurrent real-world users
> while maintaining an acceptable response time, whereas a Microsoft Windows
> DNA implementation will handle upwards of 100,000 simultaneous users. Ten
> times the number of users for about one third the system cost! Now that's
> scalability!
> </Qoute>
>
> I followed the trail of URLs and found the following comments:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409114,00.html
> "The results show that Microsoft so dominated the test--in terms of price
> and performance--that it looks downright embarrassing for the competitors"
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409389,00.html
> "...its [microsoft] C++-based bookstore was so fast that it was bottlenecked
> by the 100M-bps test network."
>
> More information about this can be found here:
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409380,00.html
>
> I know that this is quite old(almost 2 years), but is there some new data on
> it?
>
> BTW, I also checked tpc.org (new design, nice) and found this:
> DYNIX/ptx 4.5.1 Microsoft Internet Information Server 5.0
>
> on http://www.tpc.org/tpcw/results/tpcw_perf_results.asp
> How come IIS run on DYNIX?
--
Rex Ballard
Information Technology Architect
Open Systems/Open Source Advocate
http://www.open4success.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:55:07 GMT
In article <Dl_l6.1223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:_YPl6.6203$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And this spite of the fact that they've recently become so paranoid
> > they're even blocking pings:
>
> They've been doing that for 3 years at least. It's nothing recent.
OK.
> > I guess this doesn't speak well for their $6000 per CPU enterprise
> > firewall software they've just released:
>
> I fail to understand the correlation. MS blocks pings at the border, long
> before it gets to a machine other than a router. This is to prevent the
> most common DoS attacks.
I thought the most common DoS attacks were SYN floods. I've never heard
of a DoS attack with normal, short, non-broadcast pings (and a quick
google search failed to point me to any - I would be grateful if anyone
could show me a documented case). Why do yahoo.com, google.com, and
other high-profile sites not see the need to block valid pings? Not
that I'm going to lose sleep over MS pings, but it just seems to be
another small example of MS doing things their "own way". If they've
been blocking them for 3 or more years, maybe blocking all pings was
just a quick-and-dirty fix to their NT "ping-of-death" bug a few years
back, that they didn't bother to unfix after the NT patch.
I have heard of ultra-paranoid security people recommending blocking
pings, although more to "hide" the system from OS-type detection via
subtle packet "signatures" (nmap program) than to prevent DoS attacks.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:55:17 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:26:35 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, in the UK, we get 3000W out of a standard socket. You can also get
>cookeer and heater sockets which provide 30A. Why not keep the main
>computer in the utility room with the other high power stuff?
Here is the U.S we also have Electric range (cooker) outlets
that can provide up to 50A power capacities. As well as Electric
Dryer connections that provide 30A capacity. As for storing the
computer in the utility room... Neat idea! only thing is the issue of
environmental concerns such as dust! A dryer is a hell of a lint
producer. If yoru dryer is vented to the outside you still get LINT!
Todays computers have more fans that most heating systems! ;) Not only
do these fans gladly suck up dust and lint. There also is NO filters
on these!
BTW the average Electric Range and Dryer service is 208VAC
therefore you can guess the watts. Need more? hardwire the computer to
the fusebox!
--
B'ichela
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Fink)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: 25 Feb 2001 04:47:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not to be too annoying, but a one-minute Google search finds Linux
versions of Solid State's MPAC and Mapics for Linux. There doesn't
appear to be an Open Source/Free Software solution, but several
respected commercial products sure seem to exist in Linux versions.
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manager, Dueling Modems Computer Forum
<http://dm.net>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
