Linux-Advocacy Digest #885, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Mar 01 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Charlie Ebert)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Memory needed to run linux / X windows ??? ("cat cola"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Michael Heiming)
Re: the mismeasure of man (Anonymous)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jay Maynard)
Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux ("Chad Myers")
Re: Virus plague causes charity to consider Linux ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:48:10 GMT
In article <9944s5$7nt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Masha Ku' Inanna wrote:
><snipped a lot of .. well. . snipped a lot>
>
>I see that Charlie's coffee was rather strong this morning, huh? His
>eloquence has hit a new low.
>
>
Yeah! That's cute and your a moron.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:51:05 GMT
In article <99455i$tkb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Masha Ku' Inanna wrote:
>
>> At one time in our history they practically conquered the world.
>
>Um...
>
>No.
>
>Unless you consider most of Eurpoe, and a smidgen of Northern Africa to have
>practically conquered the "world" would I agree.
>
>But no.
>
>They over ran a good part of Eurpoe, paraded in Paris, goose-stepped almost
>to Moscow, and played in the Sahara, babysat Mussolini, and tried to wipe
>out the whole of Eurpoe's various "non-Aryan" ethnicities.
>
>But they had far more to conquer if they were to conquer the world.
>
>
I'd just like to say not only are you a moron but your a clueless
moron.
Charlie
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:53:53 -0500
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 17 Mar 2001 06:58:05
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> Yea; you have to share. Some restriction.
>>>> No, no one is ever forced to share. The restrictions prevent
>>>> sharing under all circumstances except those specifically
>>>> described.
>>> OK, so, how did what you say contradict what I said? Since the only
>>> restriction is you have to share, both statements can be true, making
>>> yours meaningless.
>> You must have some imaginary version of the GPL. The real one
>> says nothing about having to share or redistribute in any way. It
>> says much about conditions that prohibit any form of sharing.
> Yea. That's what I said. Are you *sure* you're smart enough to be a
> programmer? Are you *really* too dumb to understand the difference
> between literal text and the effect of a licenses literal text?
No, it isn't what you said. This is what you said.
>>>>> Yea; you have to share. Some restriction.
The REAL effect of the GPL is that I need only give it to the people to
whom I give or sell binaries and not restrict their right to modify
and/or resell and/or redistribute the software. Network effects have
made MOST GPLed software available to just about anyone, but not all by
a long shot.
>>>>> No, unless you're willing to share yourself. You obviously aren't
>>>>> willing to share.
>>>> Don't be silly. I want to share without restrictions on combinations.
>>> Combinations of what? Where you share, and where you don't share?
>> You can't combine components with any existing restrictions that
>> differ from the GPL's with anything with the GPL restrictions
>> and redistribute it.
> IOW: where you don't share, you don't share.
False, and you know it, Maxie. If something is under a source-available
source licence with different restrictions than the GPL -- or even if it's
basically the same licence CALLED something different -- then it is
considered a contravention of the licences. (Try to use your brain here,
Max: I'm going to use a thought experiment, even though I know you've got
almost no chance of getting it.)
Pretend for a moment that I create the NPPL -- the Non-Political Public
Licence -- as an almost identical copy of the GPL, except that it
didn't have the political stuff attached (it DOES, however, have the
viral nature). If I licence package A under the NPPL, then neither I
nor anyone else can combine A with any GPLed package out there. It
doesn't matter that the effects of the licences are identical.
You cannot say that I didn't want to share -- I just didn't feel like
having a political manifesto attached to my source code. But the fact
is that the GPL itself prohibits such sharing at that point.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:54:40 -0500
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 Mar 2001 04:41:52 -0800;
>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:54:56 -0500;
>>>> You have probably noticed that alot of GPL advocacy is based upon hatred. [...]
>>> You've probably noticed that these guys aren't just trolls, they're sock
>>> puppets.
>>> *** The best way to convince another is
>>> to state your case moderately and
>>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>> That's a good example of the uselessness of a quote in a signature.
>> Even the quoter doesn't take it to heart.
>> *** We have better ways now. - P. T. Barnum ***
> Apparently, you didn't read it.
He read it. He's pointing out that you are neither moderate nor accurate.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:58:23 -0500
On 18 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss, "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Free software obviously means that it can be passed on to other
>> people with no restrictions.
> That is not at all obvious. Mention of often made of free speech and
> free beer, but what about the concept of free as in "free man"? Is it
> not possible the freedom may be (at least in part) an attribute of the
> software rather than just being a freedom granted to the recipient of
> the software? In other words, like a free man, it may be passed
> around and shared but (in the same way as a free man can change
> employers but not be enslaved by them) it must retain its freedom.
This is the "software enslaved" argument, and it's bunk. Software
itself can't have freedoms; they're only able to be expressed -- like
the sofware itself -- in what others can do with it.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: "cat < nonsense > cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Memory needed to run linux / X windows ???
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:05:01 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Right now I only have 32 megs of memory in the machine I'm building
> > for Linux. I would like to run X windows, will this be enough ? I'll
> > be using a cyrix p166 and a 4 meg trident card. As for what I will be
> > doing with this linux machine, I don't know yet, probably learning
> > about linux. Maybe I'll try some programming, who knows. I was going
> > to use Red Hat or Mandrake.
> 32M is plenty if you don't use any really heavyweight apps, ie steer
> clear of Netscape 4 (use 3 or 2) and StarOffice, otherwise you'll have
> no problems.
Hmm. Not sure about this one.
> If you can find some cheap simms (mabey in an old Pentium in a skip :-)
> 64 M will be plenty.
OK, which is it? 32 is plenty, or 64 is plenty? 128 is more like it for a
newer distro.
> As it happens, my computer is a P133/72M and it is perfectly fine (even
> with NS4 and SO).
Ouch! That is fine? You have the patience of a saint for running SO on that
setup.
I love linux, but come on guys get real. Linux is the only OS
(gui-KDE-GNOME-E) that can make a pentium pro box run like a 486. NT4
explorer-gui flies on the same box.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:02:31 -0500
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, NF Stevens wrote:
> "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Look, those who don't like the GPL will have one of two reasons
>> (perhaps more):
>> 1) The license is bad.
>> 2) The people associated with it are untrustworthy, and have caused
>> problems due to their misleading information.
> No. The reason some people don't like the GPL is that it does not allow
> them to incorporate code licensed under it into proprietory, closed
> source software. AFAIAC that is a good thing.
This is a false statement. While there are a few people who are like
that, the vast majority of people who don't like the GPL don't do so
because it doesn't play well with other open source licences AND
there's a large intersection of those people who don't like
GPL-advocates because they use misleading to false ideas and
terminology to sell their licence as something it isn't.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:06:07 -0500
On 18 Mar 2001, Pat McCann wrote:
> Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> JD wrote:
>>> So, in order to SUPPORT the freeness of a piece of software, it
>>> should be required that the copyright and license (wherever they
>>> are) be maintained and modified only as allowed.
>> That logic sounds awfully familiar to me.
>> Encumber the software in order to keep it free, eh?
Jumping in here: JD isn't after encumbering the software. It's
encumbered by copyright. The GPL adds FURTHER encumbrances in its
sharing language, where JD wants to reduce the encumbrances to a
minimum in the sharing language.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:08:13 -0500
On 18 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Most users aren't going to know a fscking thing about hiring a
>> software developer to fix their software problems -- again, this is
>> a fact.
> That may be a fact now, but if free software becomes the norm will it
> still be case? I am sure that the "software service" shops would
> appear in the same way as there are now have TV repair shops and type
> and exhaust centres.
Yes, it will. Software is more an art than a science -- and while it
will become more science-like over time, it will ALWAYS maintain a
level of art which makes it nearly impossible for such things.
I also don't see GPL-unfree software becoming the norm.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:13:35 +0100
From: Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Ralph Miguel Hansen wrote:
>
>
> Disassembling would be much too hard work for that little OS. The
> Bundeswehr has had a look at the german police which has a lot of
> Linux-PC's working and they are satisfied. The parliament of
> Schleswig-Holstein voted about using Linux, but they decided to stay happy
> with M$ (Politicians......).
>
> Cheers
>
> Ralph Miguel Hansen
> Using S.u.S.E. 4.3 and SuSE 7.1
4.3 ? Never heard of, I have 4.2 flying around here somewhere.
Thx...for your post, this thread gets more and more unreadable.
As I posted to this thread before, (But no one seemed interested) the Bundeswehr
is using Linux!
According to netcraft, the german armed forces www-server:
The site www.bundeswehr.de is running Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) PHP/4.0.3pl1 on Linux.
Looks as if there would be some guys around, who know what they are doing....;-)
Why is everyone around assuming, anyone in Germany would use MS-Crap on mission
critical systems?
It'S used on the desktop and for some file/printer servers, but anyone who needs
to run systems
that are reliable, will mostly use some flavor of UNIX (Linux included)...
Michael Heiming
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:20:26 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the mismeasure of man
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
aaron wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis) eeped:
> > > On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 00:21:31 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >In article <983ulp$1ql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten wrote:
> > > >>> A true IQ test would have to
> > > >>> involve pictures and patterns, and perhaps have some mathematical
> > > >>> basis, because these are the only ideas that translate well all over
> > > >>> the world.
> > > >>
> > > >>I don't believe there is a true IQ test. People are good at different
> > > >>thing.
> > > >>
> > > >>-Ed
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >For instance, most Windows users are extremely good at immitating rocks.
> > >
> > >
> > > <sigh>
> > >
> > > Most people use Windows because it came with their computer, or the ads
> > > mentioned Windows, or they've heard of MS and Windows, or Joe from next
> > > door has Windows and dials up to AOL and looks at pr0n.
> > >
> > > Then there are business users who run what they're given.
> >
> > then there are those who are in business and understand economies of
> > scale. not to mention the cost of paying a headcase unix guru to be snotty
> > and obnoxious whilst smelling up the office and dripping twinkie crumbs on
> > the server and making rtfm sounds with his porcine cakehole.
>
> It takes a minimum of FIVE Windows adminstrators to get the same productivity
> of ONE Unix administrator.
>
> The last time I worked for EDS, a mere TWENTY Unix administrators did
> ALL systems administration for approximately 15,000 of Unix machines
> throughout General Motors, all over the country.
>
> Conversely, twenty Windows administrators have a very hectic time
> keeping ONE 1,500 user site running properly.
>
> When I was at Kmart headquarters, a 2,500 Windows-users site, they had
> close to 100 Windows administrators.
>
> If this was running Linux or Unix, the necessary support staff for desktop
> computers would be under a dozen people.
>
> Windows is false economy.
that's not the scaling i'm talking about.
reread dan's message and get back to me.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:23:53 -0500
David Brown wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message <1n7t6.50$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:992igb$c30$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >Well, they are claiming ther are backdoors without any real evidence.
> >That
> >> >means they're believing what they hear, rather than what they know to be
> >> >fact.
> >>
> >> No. They are claiming there *may* be backdoors, and that this
> >*possibility*
> >> is a risk not worth taking in certain situations.
> >
> >And your own programmes might be putting back doors in themselves. Unless
> >you do everything yourself, or have checked everything yourself thoroughly,
> >there *may* be backdoors in almost anything, open source or not.
> >
>
> For most of us, we can rely on the fanatics out there who really do pour
> over the source code for Linux and other open source software, looking for
> backdoors and other security flaws. The vast majority of security
> announcements for open source software concern potential flaws found by
> carefully examining the code - these same people would be falling
> overthemselves to tell the world if a maliscious back door was found.
This has to do with a rule of thumb. The more people that know a secret, the
less likely it remains secret. Almost no back-door can be put into Linux
without someone noticing, and telling people about it. Microsoft, on the other
hand, has, I would guess, no more than 5 to 10 people in various groups that
really "know" various sections of code.
It must be very easy to put things in Microsoft code without some development
authority noticing. Think of all the "easter eggs" in Windows, office, etc.
Think about the "netscape programers are weenies" back door. MS did not know
about it!
Think what would happen, if someone in the apache project did something like
that? There would be patches 15 minutes after discovery, that's assuming the
guys at apache would miss it.
I don't know about you, but I usually browse the diffs in updates, just to see
what has changed.
>
> Anyway, the German military (or EU beaurocrats, or whatever) have the
> resources to examine the critical code themselves.
>
> >> Simple question --- when you leave your house, do you lock the door? If
> >so,
> >> why do you do it? Do you have any evidence that between the time you
> leave
> >and
> >> the time you come back, someone will come by and try to get in and steal
> >> your stuff?
> >
> >The difference is that I lock my door with commercial grade locks. I don't
> >use a custom designed vault door.
> >
>
> In the software world, it is the commercial grade locks that are subject to
> back doors. In the real world, there are hundreds of lock smiths to choose
> from - any one that tried to cheat would soon go out of business. Also, if
> a lock company decided to make spare keys for every lock, then everyone
> would know about it. But in the software world, there are only a very few
> commercial lock makers, and it would only involve a couple of people to get
> spare keys to every system.
Actually, most lock companies DO have spare keys for each lock, in fact, keys
are not usually unique per lock. There are locks produced which use the same
keys. They are usually distributed to geographically different areas, but never
the less, there are duplicates.
Also, the serial number of the lock can sometimes get you a key. Think of a car
dealer. If you have the VIN number, you can get a key made. One can call
various lock companies with a serial number and get a key sent, even a
combination.
The only way to get a unique lock is to make it yourself, or watch a lock-smith
do it, and walk away with all the keys. Locks sitting in hardware stores in
shrink-wrap are a security risk. (Just like shrink wrap software)
>
> The fact is, there was a so-called "NSA key" found in Windows. While it did
> not turn out to be a back door, it may well have been used for testing such
> an idea, and, more importantly, it shows that such a back door *could* be
> put in Windows (or any other commerical OS for which the source is completly
> hidden from end users). Even the NSA are not stupid enough to use the
> letters "NSA" in a real back door, so there could easily be a real back door
> in every Windows system without anyone outside NSA and a few key MS people
> knowning about it.
>From what I remember about this flap, the defense was that the backup key was
to sign software that could be installed. For the ridiculous purpose that if
the main key was lost at Microsoft, they could use the backup key. Regardless
of what "experts" say, the explanation did not fit any concept of reality that
I could grasp.
How would the main key be lost? It isn't a physical object, it is a computer
file that is backed up. There are probably thousands of copies of it in backup
tapes.
I think there is more to it than the explanations. I may be paranoid, but the
alternative is to trust Microsoft and the NSA. A difficult choice I am sure.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 19 Mar 2001 13:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:50:14 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So you figure you'd incorporate that little benefit into your own work,
>> huh? And you figure if GNU software says "its free", that means you
>> should be free to do that. I folla, I folla. Couldn't figure out how
>> to do with with some other tar, and couldn't use someone else's work
>> without their permission. What a shame.
>Yes, it is a shame that the GPL prevented the free distribution of code
>that the original author (as I recall, GNUtar evolved from something
>called pdtar, where pd=public domain) wanted to be freely available.
Give up, Les. Max obviously is one of those GPV zealots - you know, the ones
the folks in gnu.misc.discuss keep denying the existence of - that believes
that if it's not GPVed, it's not free. He is incapable of seeing that what
you wanted was to combine multiple works, each individually free, into a new
free work, but were prevented because the GPV does not play well with other
licenses the FSF calls free, even if he doesn't.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:12:55 GMT
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <va9t6.87051$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Ed Allen wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <cCOs6.82336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >It's alright, laugh it up. I know you're really just jealous
> >> > >because you know that I'm right. You know that the only company
> >> > >who really takes Linux seriously (if that's what it really is)
> >> > >is IBM, and IBM has a poor track history with desktop and
> >> > >small-server OSen.
> >> > I suppose that is true if you have a secret definition for
> >> > "seriously" like Erik likes to do.
> >> >
> >> > How many more millions does Intel need to invest to qualify in
> >> > your private definition ?
> >> >
> >> > Lets not forget that AMD is encouraging Linux developers to use their
> >> > coming 64-bit chips. They don't qualify, why ?
> >> >
> >> > SGI does not qualify either. Why not ? They are planning to add
> >> > their NUMA technology and sell Itanium cluster machines.
> >> >
> >> > Then too, all the universities using Linux to put together their
> >> > own Supercomputers are not companies either.
> >> > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1113447
> >> >
> >> > What do you think the graduating students will recommend for use
> >> > at their new jobs ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, a very excellent point!
> >
> >It's a very common problem.
> >
> >Universities using archaic or esoteric systems to teach their students,
> >and then when the students graduate and get out into the real world
> >where companies have to make money, they realize they know nothing
> >necessary to compete.
> >
> >Meanwhile, the intelligent individuals who decided not to waste
> >their time on worthless university "computer science", and instead
> >decided to learn the hot technologies that pay well and are making
> >a fortune and are in high demand, even in today's economy.
> >
> >Those students may suggest it to their employers, but their employers
> >will laugh because they know the truth about linux.
> >
> I suspected you might ignore my refutation of your false claim and
> make another to change the subject, hoping nobody would notice.
>
> Sorry Chad sock-puppets do not think or write well without their
> masters' hand up their butt.
>
> I don't usually post HTML but this one's for you and I would not
> want to strain your little neuron.
>
> The first one is the *only* link I have seen for a W2K cluster.
> It is one tenth as powerful as one of the Linux links beneath it.
Not everyone uses supercomputers. For the masses, Win2K is the fastest
clustering solution you can buy (or can't buy, as the case may be).
See www.tpc.org.
The Linux clusters are accomplished only by stringing together hundreds
of machines. It doesn't speak much about Linux that it's so low-performance
that you need to string hundreds of machines to achieve any respectable
performance.
> The second one explains that Linux clusters are rapidly climbing to
> the top of the list of largest supercomputers.
So? Stringing together hundreds of boxes isn't something to really
be proud of, necessarily. And even so, they're just competeing with
Unix, for the most part. For the rest of the world, there's Windows.
> How do you think working on and building clusters big enough to be
> ranked among the top 500 supercomputers in the world deserves to be
> labeled "using archaic or esoteric systems" ?
In terms of how the world uses computing, this is a small portion of it.
Granted, it is the largest portion in terms of MIPS, but in terms of
people using them, many more people use Windows every day for servers
and desktops. Linux is still a niche OS.
>
> Oil companies, biotech companies, and financial houses are hardly
> what I would class as dead end jobs.
>
> The Linux community is putting together several "Supercomputer On A
> CD" distros so these clusters will become more common and the
> knowledge of how to put them together and keep them tuned up will be
> within the reach of every highschool science club.
>
> This is the territory Bill is aching about getting in to and Linux
> is here first and widening the gap.
Not really. Bill goes after the big bucks, not some geeky niche.
> I would let someone else show him this list if I were you, he has been
> known to spit and throw things when he is unhappy.
>
> <TITLE>Bookmarks for Chad Meyers</TITLE>
It's "Myers", fuckwit.
<snip: html post>
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Virus plague causes charity to consider Linux
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:14:51 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > My comment was on your comment "Another one bites the dust!" which seems to
> > be saying that the switch actually happened.
>
> It's a well known fact that keeping your head in the sand is the best way to
> keep the world from changing around you.
One charity organization out there TALKS about switching (which is really
a rash move, and it's obvious they don't understand the undertaking of
switching to Linux and the 400% increase in support calls and cost that
it will cost them, not to mention a worse headache than dealing with
some harmless "virus") and you guys get all creamed over it, and you
tell us to get OUR heads out of the sand?
Perhaps you should start right now.
-c
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
