Linux-Advocacy Digest #613, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 07:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (Rex Ballard)
Re: How would you do this with Linux ? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Matthias Warkus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 08:20:48 GMT
In article <97pg2m$ce1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > I repeat, I'm surprised any OS would have multiple drivers for a
> > printer.
>
> HAVE YOU NOT READ A SINGLE ONE OF MY REPLYS?!
>
> THE OS DOES NOT HAVE MULTIPLE DRIVERS
>
> THE EXTRA DRIVERS BELONG TO GIMP
>
> GGGGGG IIIIIIII M M PPPPPPPP
> GG GG II MM MM PP PP
> GG GG II MMM MMM PP PP
> GG II MM M M MM PP PP
> GG GGGG II MM M MM PP PP
> GG GG II MM MM PPPPPPPP
> GG GG II MM MM PP
> GG GG II MM MM PP
> GGGGGGG IIIIIIII MM MM PP
>
> GIMP is NOTHING at ALL to do with the OS. It is SEPERATE. It is an
> APPLICATION. The OS does NOT provide multiple drivers. GIMP provids its
> OWN. GIMP is NOT part of the OS.
Then I will rephrase what I said.
I'm surprised any OS or application needs extra or multiple drivers in
this day an age. All the drivers (and there should just be one set) ought
to be in the OS, not in an application. Is that clear enough for you?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 06:34:58 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============8E525A0CCEC88B4D58FB9E76
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> IBM mongule Rex Ballard wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <9602e9$86m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
By the way [EMAIL PROTECTED] == R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard );
dejanews is no
longer available due to google purchase - posting via nntp now.
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> >> >> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >> >> <95i0sr$p64$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Microsoft's assertion that Linux is not a technical thread is
> >> >> >actually absurd. Eventually, Linux will reach the mainstream
> >> >> >and executive desktops. When it does, Microsoft will be unable
> >> >> >to pretend that it has originated technology that was forged in
> >> >> >the cauldron of Open Source.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> Considering the number of superclusters using Linux today
> >> I think we could easily say it hit the mainstream.
Linux has definitely hit the mainstream. Open Source as well. With
Linux and
UNIX jointly holding the largest market share (even more than NT), and
with
Apache still providing over 60% of the web servers, Linux has definately
"hit the mark".
> >Ironically, even though the average computer user spends over half the
> >time he spends on a PC interacting with UNIX systems (via the Web
> >browser) most computer users don't know what server they are using.
> >Many users actually think that it's their PC doing all the work.
> >
>
> True.
>
> >This is one of the reasons that a good strong desktop initiative is so
> >important.
>
> True. I'm not saying lay over and die here.
> I'm just saying that if you can not appreciate the *FACT*
> that the worlds largest super clusters of computers are
> based on Linux as a mainstream action of the course of business,
> then truely you are crediting GNU/Linux for nothing!
Actually, Linux has a profound impact on our lives today. The mail is
routed
using Linux readers, several banks use Linux for routing, oil companies
used Linux
to find oil, the weather service uses Linux to predict the path of
hurricanes, and
several satellites now run Linux. In addition, Linux powers most cable
modems,
most DSL modems, and several routers and switches.
> If one examines the serious complexity involved in actually
> making a super computer cluster work effeciently, to discount
> Linux for day to day business use is so completely insane
> it's unbelievable.
Very true. I've heard at least one CIO mention how much he loves
Google, as did his
subordinate. Ten minutes later they were declaring how Linux had no
practical commercial
use as a corporate server. He was astonished to discover that Google
was powered by
Linux. Even after all this, they insisted that they were going to use
Windows 2000,
primarily because they had been using it on their desktops and figured
it was so much
better than NT that it ALL the usual problems would go away.
I eventually had to cancel that engagement because I knew I would be the
one blamed
when these Windows 2000 machines crashed and burned (ala Hotmail).
> It's stability is renouned!
True. Ironically, Linux frequently gets slammed when compared to
Solaris, AIX, or OS/390,
all of which support larger memory models and larger file sizes.
Microsoft uses this
to imply that Linux isn't ready for prime-time and Windows 2000 is.
Windows 2000 can solve some problems, but doesn't solve the usual
problems of DLL hell,
corrupted registries, manual (error prone) installation procedures, and
security holes
created through the use of executable modules which are downloaded and
executed by clients
and servers. It also doesn't do much to reduce development times which
can be as much
as 20 times a comparable implementation in Linux.
> To discount the usability of Gnome riding on Linux as a basic
> desktop is completely assinine. That's a comment comming from
> *TODAY* in the here and now.
GNOME and KDE have completely blown away Microsoft's claims of superiour
usability.
Microsoft still has a slight edge in terms of initial training time.
This is primarily
because Microsoft has still managed to keep Linux off of retailer
shelves (where curious
users can learn by "test driving" KDE or GNOME). Microsoft has always
depended on
misinformation (Fraud), vaporware (more Fraud), and control of press
releases (more Fraud)
as well as control of press through advertizing revenue and co-op
placement control (more fraud and censorship).
When customers are prevented from getting the information, they can't
make informed
decisions. When those customers are CTOs, CIOs, CEOs, and CFOs, the
numbers get
very ugly. Only today, Oracle announced that it was the CEOs and CFOs
who are now
killing purchase ordars. They are demanding that Open Source solutions
be considered
as an alternative to layoffs of thousands of workers. Given that Linux
can reduce
IT costs by as much as 80% and increase productivity by making it
trivial to automate
repetitive tasks, Linux represents the next wave of economic growth.
Micrososft must
get out of the way before this wave can really snowball and build.
Imagine what would have happened if Microsoft had succeeded in creating
a monopoly
of on-line communications through dedicated single-service microsoft
controlled service
over low-speed dial-up lines direct to Lan Manager servers. Imagine if
all the content
were stored in MS-Word, Paint, and Excel format instead of HTML
format. No standards,
(except for the ones that Bill changed every 2 years to get more
revenue). No compatibility
with UNIX, no support for frame-relay, ATM, DSL, or even X.25. We'd
still be dialing
through X3 pads for service similar to the old Prodigy VideoTex format.
Instead, 1991 was the turning point. Just as IBM and others were
starting to drop,
Linus published his kernel to TSX-11. Just as Microsoft was announcing
that Windows NT
wasn't going to be out for another year, Marc Andreeson was publishing
Mosaic to the NCSA
web site. Just as AOL was struggling to serve 1 million users, 5000
Fido and Wildcat BBS
operators put Linux on their machines to create the earliest POPs.
Linux was already
forming the foundation of the Internet back in 1993.
Sun was smart. They contributed code and made it as easy as possible to
convert Linux
code into Solaris code. As a result, they cashed in big time when early
Linux servers,
running on 80386 machines or 80486/33 machines needed to be replaced
with something a bit
more powerful. Many jumped streight into SPArC and SunOS/Solaris.
IBM picked up on this in 1997 and began agressively courting Linux
users. It has paid off for them as well. Many Linux users are even
upgrading to OS/390 mainframes, using Linux instances for the familiar
interfaces while connecting to DB2 and CICS systems on the "back-end".
HP started going after Linux users at the beginning of the year, but
their lack of support
for Linux in the peripheral (scanner and printer) market has cost them
relationships that
could lead to HP/9000 sales in 1-2 years.
Unfortunately, Linux has been suffering from the rediculously high stock
prices created
by some questionable "pump and dump" tactics that may even have involved
some Microsoft
executives. When companies like VA Linux announce that they are still
enjoying 150-200%
growth rates year/year the pundits on CNBC can't resist mentioning that
the stock is
way off it's $300/share high established a year ago.
Many were betting on a quick and conclusive judgement in the DOJ case,
and were
cashing in on the negative press. The MSNBC leak of the Monica Lewinski
tapes on
their web site (and referenced by the home page) diverted attention from
Microsoft
and put the whole market into a tail-spin.
> >Until Linux is running on the desktop, people will not have all of the
> >capabilities available.
>
> I find this comment partially without reason. Today's Gnome easily
> replaces the worlds mainstay of NT based workstations.
GNOME not only replaces the functions of NT, they far exceed the
capabilities
of NT and Windows 2000 workstations. The combination of Linux
workstions
connected to Linux servers creates whole new capabilities. Furthermore,
the new standards established by the Linux community (PNG, HTML, XML,
openSSH,
streaming MPEG.bz , and real-time display technology, combined with
asynchronous
and peer-to-peer support opens up whole new realms of possibility in
terms of
the ability of corporations to communicate information and coordinate
actions
effectively.
Some companies might not like it. Travel services will be a mixed bag.
You don't
have to have as many face-to-face conferences, but you may have to
travel more
because you are closing more business in broader geographies and opening
up new markets.
The media industry won't be particularly happy since more of the
corporate budget
will be focused on revenue generating communication and action producing
results
instead of pure "brand establishement". TiVO is a good example of
viewers having
control of what they watch and when they watch it. When USA announced
that they
were cancelling La Femme Nikita, e-mail campaigns resulted in a second
season.
Advertizers discovered that placing ads in a show that aired in a really
bizarre
time-slot (Sunday 10:00 PM EST, and Midnight on weekdays) was suddenly
producing
viewers who were taking action on ads viewed on the tape the following
evening
during "Family Hour". Linux is very likely to trigger similar shifts.
Time
can be managed more effectively. The e-mail goes directly to you
machine immediately,
your workstation also functions as your fire-wall, and you can flip
between desktops
to support customer "impulse requests" that would previously go
ignored. You also
won't have customers sitting at the airport, hoping to book another
flight, and
listening to your customer service rep trying to explain that she's
waiting for
her workstation to finish rebooting.
You'll probably have multiple machines. You might have a machine at
home that you
contact via the internet. You may also have a hosted web site. You
might also
have a laptop that you carry with you, and a Linux powered PDA that you
use
when you're in meetings or on the plane. Rather than being passive
computers
that wait for you to initiate actions (which you have to do several
times a day),
you can automate thousands of procedures and have them all done
automatically.
Not only will you be able to book the flight, you'll know before you get
in your car
that the flight will be delayed, that there is a traffic jam on the
Verizano, and
that you're meeting has been pushed back two hours. You might even have
a list of
alternative flights available for your selection (provided by a travel
agent who was
alerted the minute the flight delay was announced (electronically).
When your customer
orders 200 widgets, you'll know within seconds that your supplier can
only deliver 100
tomorrow and the rest on two days later, you'll be able to tell your
client when he will
have each shipment and how many items will be on each shipment. You
might not even
have to leave your living room or hotel room. When you're in a meeting,
someone else
in your "cell" can handle routine transactions.
It sounds like science fiction today doesn't it? And yet, this is only
the tip
of the iceberg of what's possible when Linux hits the desktops. The
bottom line
is that Linux users will spend less time doing routine, repetitive
tasks, and more
time engaged in creative processes, causing actions, and making and
implementing
informed decisions.
> Your comment is directed toward some futuristic development of
> Gnome leading to mass infiltration of PDA's using 2.0 technology
> which is even more appealing than what we have now.
Even a Palm-pilot/Linux combination has potential we have yet to tap. I
have a Palm VIIx
and even if I didn't have Linux on it, I can synch with Linux and keep
databases, contacts,
schedules, and other key information in the convenient pocket pack, and
still have
the capabilities of full service when I open my laptop.
> My question is, why preclude Gnome is NOT ready for the desktop
> when it obviously *CAN* tackle the job of replacing NT?
That's the point. GNOME and KDE ARE ready for the desktop! Microsoft
keeps getting in the way, and they seem determined to maintain their
monopoly if it means bankrupting their customers, but this can only
continue for so long before the OEMs decide that they need "Something
completely different".
In much the same way that the Honda Civic and the Volkswagon Bug created
a whole new
demand for a whole new kind of automobile in the 1970s and early 1980s,
Linux is
creating a whole demand for a different kind of computer - one that
Microsoft can't
or won't produce. Chrysler had to get a "bail-out", GM almost tanked,
American Motors
eventually folded, and most all three are now part of international
conglomerates.
Linux users are a whole new breed. They grew up playing video games on
Nintendo and
Sega, were playing "mouse games" before they could read, were
keyboarding before they
could write with a pen, did term papers using Microsoft Word by the time
they were
in 7th grade, and were doing research via the web for 50 page term
papers by the time
they were freshmen in high school. Many of these kids have their own
web sites,
they have multiple computers, and they want a Linux-laptop for
christmas.
They also listen to M&M, Brittany Spears, and Madonna, have tried drugs
a few times
and decided it wasn't for them, and have to be reminded to turn off
their cell phones
during classroom lectures. They go to coffee bars where they drink
Latte and plug
their ethernet adapter into the internet and their Linux powered
laptop. They take notes
on a PDA, and publish them in HTML format. They also participate in
multiple e-mail
discussions, read 20-30 e-mails an hour and post 3-5 responses an hour.
This "Generation D" as one company calls them are very good at getting
things done.
They are the leading edge of a "baby boom" that started in the early
1980s under
the Reagan era. Most have had only one parent and have learned that
they can't
depend on anyone. If they can't get a "job" they'll start their own
busineses.
If the marriage doesn't work out, they'll be working. They'll be saving
for
their own retirement (since Social Security will be wiped out) and will
use
many of the same techniques to conduct real business as those currently
used
by Drug dealers, Porn/Prostitution (sites), and will be able to access
nearly any
infomation they need within 3-5 minutes (like the kid who orders plastic
during
the meeting).
> Why make such a statement now? NT *IS* the current market.
> Windows 2000 has been a dismal marketing failure for Microsoft.
Windows ME hasn't been any great shakes either. We have Dell, Gateway,
Compaq,
HP, and even IBM warning then announcing that PC sales were below
expectations.
When Windows stops generating sales, the OEMs will be looking very
seriously at Linux.
> Everywhere I go I see caution/watch out for this crap signs
> when discussion of Windows 2000 upgrades occure.
Windows 2000/ME upgrades have to issues. First, most of the new
applications aren't
even attempting to be backward compatible. IIS 5.0, SQL Server 2000,
and Office 2000
support Windows 98 and Windows NT, but don't try too hard to be
compatible with
Windows 95, Windows NT 3.51, or Windows 3.1. In fact, if you have
Windows 3.1 software,
you'll probably have better luck running it on Linux than on Windows
2000. If you have
3rd party Windows 95 software that competes with Microsoft, you'll
probably have better results with Linux.
> And now that they've mentioned the forthcomming of yet
> another OS to save the day, I am assured that Microsoft
> is on the negative cashflow cycle of it's business life.
Whistler. After seeing Windows 2000 and hearing the announcements of
what Whistler
is "going to have" (yet another round of
Vaporware/Fraud/Bait-and-switch), Whistler
will be Linux but completely incompatible in every way. There is even
speculation
that Microsoft has been plagerizing FreeBSD and GPL code to get the
reliability and
performance of Linux/Unix. Of course, part of the deal-killer on
Windows 2000 was
the fact that Windows 2000 broke compatibilities. It broke SAMBA, LDAP,
Kerberos,
PPP/CHAP, MQSeries, CORBA, DNS, and created security holes in SNMP,
SMTP, HTTP,
and Java. In many cases, the system can't even be configured to be
compatible or
safe.
Microsoft still believes that they are the only ones with the right to
innovate and
that corporations should abandon their mainframes, UNIX systems, VMS,
Tandem, and other
reliable systems and convert their entire information infrastructure to
Microsfot's
technology - even though it will be obsolete in 2-4 years.
Whistler pushes this whole disregard for the customer to a whole new
level. Not only do
they now want to force you into upgrades, they want you to pay an annual
royalty for
unspecified service, with no guarantee of quality of service, service
level agreements,
availability accountability, or even promises of up-to-date security
patches. They
ask users to "trust ME" even as Outlook pours virus after virus onto
millions of desktops costing tens of billions of dollars each time.
> >> >> They've had a long time to get there...
> >> >> and they haven't quite made it yet.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Instead they (KDE) appear to be copying Windows.
> >> >> What innovation Linux?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I dont' get this. Windows isn't an original thing!
> >> Windows is a copy of a MAC from the 80's!
> >> People who make comments like this must not have been alive
> >> very long...
> >
> >It's even worse than that. Windows 3.0 was a variant of the HP widgets
> >which were the source for much of Motif. Simply put,, Windows was
> >actually
> >based on UNIX (X11) code base.
> >
> >Most of the "innovations" in the Windows 95/NT4 desktop were based on
> >the capabilities of Fvwm, Motif, and CDE.
Yep. And most of the innovations of ME and 2000 are based on
capabilities
introduced by Afterstep, WindowMaker, KDE, and even Linux. The Windows
2000
resource kit even contains some half-baked perversion of Korn-shell,
PERL, Java,
and Visual Basic. Microsoft still provides no "official" full-function
scripting
language - they suggest Visual Basic, which still requires a compiler to
create
scheduled applications. Even VBScript requires manual intervention by a
human
operator (if the operator falls asleep and doesn't start the 3:00 A.M.
reorg until
6:00 A.M., it's going to be a fun day for the day crew, the product
manager, the
CIO, and the CTO.
> >ActiveDesktop was actually an attempt to mimic many of the features of
> >the FVWM, KDE, and GNOME desktops.
> >
> >Windows ME has many of the features of AfterStep.
> >
> >Of course, what makes this humerous is that Microsoft Winvocates will
> >slam and dis
> >the Linux interface, until Windows exhibits the same behaviors.
> >
>
> Without being able to provide further comment on the above, I will
> agree with you that I've seen Wintrolls stop the bashing of certain
> Linux desktop features when it became available under Windows.
I you really look through the threads. The most common form of FUD
seems to be to describe some Linux-Hostile configuration (unsupported
video card, USB printer, scanner, and camera, Winmodem, and some
obscure Lan card that even Windows 2000 doesn't support "out of the
box".
They then try to bait Linux Gurus into saying how easy this shoud be.
Drestin Black used to be very good at picking "killer configurations".
The simplest solution is to suggest that they check the compatibility
list before picking a platform, or compare the experience of installing
Windows 98 on a PS2/386 (Microchannel) or a 486/33-VLB machine.
Ironically,
Linux is pretty effective at sorting out even these oddballs.
> Case in point is replacable skins. Yet they still don't have
> the ability to manage multiple desktops....
Actually, they try to create the illusion of this by offering different
themes
in their "Resource Kits". The Windows NT version is pretty raw. Each
screen
gets it's own environment and registry (ugly). Supposedly, Win2K
supports
2 concurrent users on idependently functioning desktops via a VNC style
connection.
Appearantly this requires special hardware that is only available in SMP
servers.
> >I've even noticed that Microsoft has "been inspired" by some other UNIX
> >features.
> >Windows 2000 uses the equivalent of "sticky bits" to make MS-Office and
> >other Microsoft applications to load more quickly. Of course, since
> >third party products don't have
> >the documentation for this feature, they seem to run much slower (Notes,
> >Netscape, WordPerfect...).
>
> Yes this is another good example.
I just recently heard that Microsoft has had so many patents and
copyrights challenged
by GPL software that they are now trying to get Congress to declare it
illegal. Unfortunately, this would mandate that the "Use License" which
restricts the use of copyrighted material such as Microsoft Windows
would also have to be revoked. Furthermore, it would be an
ex-post-facto law which would be unconstitutional. Microsoft's lawyers
are baffled by GPL and
can't seem to find a legal way around it.
> >Judge Jackson shouldn't have lifted the Behavioral remedies. Under
> >those remedies,
> >Microsoft executives would be facing criminal charges right now.
> >
>
> It is MY FIRM belief that Microsoft should have been planned
> for a 3 way split of the company.
They like the idea of splitting. But they don't like the idea of
splitting up
the management team. They don't like the idea of isolating the
development team.
I recently attended a "pitch meeting" in which one of the customer reps
had
published e-mail to 5 people asserting that the SQL Server 2000 team had
special information and a special relationship with the OS
organization.
The Microsoft rep made a similar assertion. When I put it in very
strict
legal terms - do you have exclusive access to information that IBM,
Oracle,
and Sybase DON'T have access to? They avoided the question by asking
where
the wire was, pulling the hand's free unit of my cell-phone, and asking
me to
show them that it wasn't turned on and dialed in.
They quickly switched to other topics and never answered the question.
The
result was that Executives were left with the impression that Microsoft
did
have exclusive information. Meanwhile, the DBA, Systems Architect, and
Operations manager were asking why we were willing to commit to an
incompatible
database. All of those who had had to deal with scaling problem were
opposed
to the use of something that couldn't be ported to UNIX. The executives
eventually
ordered us to write an unqualified reccomendation of SQL Server 2000 on
Windows 2000
for use in any application. Two of us are no longer dealing with that
company.
> #1 would be the OS division.
If the OS division couldn't force the inclusion of Works or Office,
Microsoft couldn't
price Windows competitively. The "all or nothing" approach has been
effective, but
this could easily result in felony criminal charges under the Judge's
order.
> #2 would be the development tools and databases division.
This would again place Microsoft in a toe-to-toe slugging match with the
Linux
distribution. Java, Perl, C++, TCL, and Qt would reduce Microsoft's
market share
to less than 20%. Microsoft feels that it's rightful share of this
market in 95%,
anything less would cause the stock to crash even more than it already
has.
> #3 would be the applications division.
Microsoft would then have to make a decision. If they published Office
for Linux,
the OS stock Tools/Database stock would be worthless. If they published
exclusively
for Windows, they would face direct competition with Corel and
StarOffice. Now that
Microsoft owns enough of Corel to order the CEO around, they can kill
one member of
the market. StarOffice would become the dominant cross-platform
solution. Meanwhile,
Microsoft would lose control of formats and standards.
> >--
> >Rex Ballard
> >Information Technology Architect
> >Open Systems/Open Source Advocate
> >http://www.open4success.com
>
> --
> Charlie
>
> **DEBIAN** **GNU**
> / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
> / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
> /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
> http://www.debian.org
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============8E525A0CCEC88B4D58FB9E76
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============8E525A0CCEC88B4D58FB9E76==
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How would you do this with Linux ?
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 11:38:02 +0000
> Try 1 server with some low-cost linux workstations - terminals are very
> hard to find and Pentium 66 machines can be purchased used for about $40
You haven't looked :-) Try www.wyse.com. Although P66 machines are cheap,
dumb terminals have no moving parts and are very reliable. What might be
better is using a low end pentium or 486 or 386 as a terminal server. A
small computer w/ 4MB RAM and a netboot card (ie no HDD or anything)
makes a fine terminal server.
In fact, IIRC you can ge tlittle boxes with an ethernet port on one end
and a bunch of serial ports on the other end. That would be smaller and
more reliable than an old PC.
> The server doensn't have to be spectacular either. A Pentium 200 should
> be more than enough to handle the needs of up to 100 users. Certainly,
> this is more than enough for a small furniture company.
I don't think a P200 would wel server 100 dumb terminals, but a beefier
computer would. Or, you could beef up the terminal servers a bit and do
some processing on them.
> Linux dumb terminals? Why? Linux can be functional in "point of
> service" environments using as little as 8 meg, you can either keep a
> small local hard drive or boot off the network. With SAMBA shares or
> NFS shares, you could keep local storage to a minimum. You would
> probably want some local storage for swap space and for some locally
> cached information, what is typically known as the root, and var
> partitions. Given than 1 gig hard drives run as little as $20 each at
> computer fairs, Linux would be easy to implement on very cheap hardware.
I've set up 486's and 386's as dumb terminald. I got away with 250M HDDs.
Using Linux as dumb terminals, you can get nicer text, such as 100x37.
I have also used some 286s as dumb terminals. I put NCSA telnet and
TCP/IP drivers on them and the autoexec.bat forced them to telnet to one
specified machine. The hard disk on one died so it was checked when
someone switched it off.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 11:33:31 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:18:35 -0500...
...and Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > GNOME has a superior architecture. KDE is more polished.
>
> I pretty much agree, although I'd have to say KDE has the better web
> browser (Konqueror) by far.
Yes, although GNOME's Galeon isn't all that bad.
mawa
--
Wenn die Wochentage Städte wären...
...dann wäre der Samstag London.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
