Linux-Advocacy Digest #652, Volume #33 Mon, 16 Apr 01 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Why Bill Gates Is Ramming His Thick Meaty Cock Up Torvald's Weak Mincing Ass
("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) ("David L.
Moffitt")
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro (Bob Hauck)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism, (Bloody
Viking)
Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display.. (Michael Vester)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:14:45 GMT
Paul Repacholi wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "franek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > I could never understand this enamoration with HTML-based
> > > interfaces. There's a good case for using HTML in a normal
> > > web-based environment, but why the hell one would want to use this
> > > crude and slow method in a standalone system is beyond me.
>
> > Well, there are a lot of reasons why one might want to do this.
>
> > 1) rollout of new versions is effortless. Just install the new
> > pages, scripts, etc.. and it just works the next time they load a
> > page. You can do this by centralizing the apps in a traditional
> > environment as well, but then you have to get everyone to exit their
> > processes and reload. This isn't something you would want to do
> > automatically because users might have a page up for a specific
> > reason, and killing it on them could be disasterous.
>
> > 2) You can use very low-end hardware for terminals (win 3.1 boxes
> > even).
>
> Great if you have no solvents, dust, high power machinery...
>
> As I said, get factory experience and understand *the* factory.
> Cutting $20 bucks won't go far when you are explaining the reasons for
> destroying $100M of plant and killing 5 people.
>
> Oh, and rolling out new versions is NEVER effortless. It can take 6
> months or more of extensive testing before you 'roll out'. And if you
> think that it becomes easier by adding a huge jump in complexity...
>
> --
> Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
> +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
> West Australia 6076
> Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
However there are a number of manufacturers who make PC equals for the
factory floor. They are much lower cost than traditional factory
hardware, especially HP or Sun systems. These systems cost lots more
than CompUSA trash, but still are cost effective, *IF* they have a good
OS loaded. Linux does have competitors in this market, QNX being one.
But the cost of a single BSOD is high enough to keep Windows out.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Bill Gates Is Ramming His Thick Meaty Cock Up Torvald's Weak
Mincing Ass
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:25:06 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>> Well, Aaron, you have the watch now. I have to do some dirty work
>> Monday... Fire a dumb Doctor. I won't have much time any more with any
>> news groups... maybe I can get back in but I have some grave doubts.
>> You're ok. I think a lot of people mis-understand you.
>
> Most do...but I don't give a shit anymore.
>
Relax, kick back, have a couple of brewskies, add another line to the sig
if you want. Just two rules in life to remember -
1. Don't sweat the small shit.
2. It's all small shit.
Ciaio.
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:31:43 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matthew Gardiner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:39:09 +1200
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >I updated my glibc from 2.1 to 2.2 and did not require a reboot.
>
> This may illustrate why Linux works better than Windows; one issue
> here is that executables requiring the services of glibc are
> pointing to one copy of the file, whereas anything started up
> after the installation of the new file will, unless they explicitly
> specify 2.1 as a version (presumably, this is done during link time
> or during dlopen() time by appending the version number), get
> the new version.
>
> Heaven help the sysadmin types if there are incompatibilities between
> 2.1 and 2.2. However, that's extremely rare, though I suspect
> something like that has happened on Unix.
>
This happens all the time. Not as often as it once did. The solution is
to either install a static linked version of the application or a local
copy of glibc. The application has a link in its home directory pointing
to the correct version of glibc. Only root can install a new version of
glibc, and root does so only after checking all common applications for
compatibility. The old copy is removed only after insuring that everyone
has a chance to reboot. Which may be a long time.
> The only way to deal with that is to kill all daemons referring to
> glibc -- unfortunately, that includes init. Reboot time! But
> again, that's extremely rare -- and its even rarer because Linux
> doesn't support the notion of a global shared data segment between all
> processes using a certain library; if a process wants functionality
> like that, one has to use mmap(), read it from a file, or otherwise
> deal with this lack, and most Unix utilities functions are
> downward-compatible, which has the downside of a number of
> deprecated switches on occasion (make(1), for example,
> ignores the switches -b and -m). One hopes in the case of mmap()
> that all writers respect the original version and that the file
> itself can be upgraded once the system reboots. (Note that glibc
> implements mmap(), but AFAIK no call within glibc uses it.)
>
> An example of a system which might have had shared-data per library
> was the Amiga, which had true shared libraries (but no
> memory mapping). However, it wasn't automatic; the library had to
> set it up and maintain it itself.
>
> By contrast, NT doesn't implement versioning on their DLLs beyond
> the relatively crude 'msvcrt20.dll' and 'mfc30.dll'. Presumably,
> the installer moves them out of the way, but the DLL loader -- I
> think -- will load exactly one copy of a DLL, and, until needed,
> will not unload it; NT therefore thinks that the old copy of the DLL
> is the same as the new and won't load the new one. I think
> the name is 'MSVCRT20' or 'MFC30'.
>
> (Linux does the same, but the name is the full file pathname,
> which means the control is finer and much more reliable. Also,
> I think the device and inode gets involved in there somewhere; two
> different files will not have the same device and inode.
> I'd have to look, but AFAIK Linux can share physical code pages,
> as can NT.)
>
> >
> >Matthew Gardiner
> >
> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >>
> >> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > [snips]
> >> > >
> >> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >
> >> > > > Since there is no junior-high-designed "registry" to get corrupted,
> >> > > > there is ZERO need to shut down other programs to install a new app.
> >> > >
> >> > > Umm... the registry is not the reason apps require reboots. Generally
> >> > > speaking, there are three reasons an install wants to reboot:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1) It has attempted to update a locked file, such as a system file.
> >> > > 2) It has installed something expected to run during the startup phase
> >> of
> >> > > operations
> >> > > 3) It is installing a service (not in the NT sense, but in the sense of
> >> a
> >> > > background application or library) which needs to be launched in order
> >> to
> >> > > work
> >> > >
> >> > > One might suggest that in the case of #3, a better approach could be
> >> used.
> >> > > I agree. In the cases of #2 and #1, I'm not sure how, given such an
> >> > > application being installed, Linux would handle this any better; how
> >> exactly
> >> > > does Linux handle live patching of the kernel, for example, without
> >> > > rebooting?
> >> > >
> >> > Just in regards to:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Linux has most, if not all libraries installed required for most
> >> > software, however, when more libraries need to be installed, no reboot
> >> > is required. Under O/S 2 Warp 4, you had to reboot after applying a
> >> > service pack (because it included low-level drivers, kernel updates
> >> > etc), however, in an application sense, it should not be required.
> >>
> >> What about needing to update those libraries?
> >>
> >> > 2. Can be started then and there. Just like if I want to add support for
> >> > a USB Zip drive, I simply drop into shell and type: insmod usb-storage,
> >> > and voila, instant access to my hardware. I have installed Solaris
> >> > patches and the only time you need to reboot is when the kernel has been
> >> > updated, however, it is not forced, unlike Microsoft Windows.
> >>
> >> I don't think he meant this, there are several stuff that *need* reboot,
> >> because they can't be done when the computer is running.
> >> Converting the FS type of the system partition, or making changes to it,
> >> frex.
> >> I don't think that you can do that in linux without reboot either.
> >>
> >> > 3. Services, yet another thing that can be started on the fly. For
> >> > example, I could start up Apache without needing to reboot. I could
> >> > start Squid proxy with out a reboot.
> >>
> >> Dito for NT. There is nothing to prevent you from starting & shutting down
> >> services whenever you like it.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > What I am pointing out is that, if you take a kernel upgrade out of the
> >> > equation, a OS should never need to be rebooted, and hopefully once
> >> > hot-plug PCI becomes more mainstream, even needing to shut down the
> >> > computer to install hardware will become a thing of the past.
> >>
> >> I fully agree.
> >> Something to point out, though. Ninety nine precent of the applications that
> >> want reboot, don't need it. It's something that had been there because of
> >> 9x. And I certnaily close none of my applications to install new ones.
> >> (Well, I log in as another user via TS, but that is another matter.)
> >
> >--
> >I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operater from Hell)
> >
> >If you donot like it go [#rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
> >
> >Running SuSE Linux 7.1 Pro w/ Kernel 2.4.2
> >
> >SuSE, the best of German engineering, now in software form :)
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 8d:10h:21m actually running Linux.
> Use the source, Luke.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "David L. Moffitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:33:44 -0500
%%%% AYE!!!!
"Rob Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Re:
>
> "Let's take a nice, Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon style pure-democratic
> vote:
>
> All for putting Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon up against the wall, and
> filling him full of lead, say "AYE!" All opposed, say "NAY"
>
> Let's see how much Sliverdick likes democracy now."
>
> > AYES:3
> > NAYS:0
>
> ABSTAIN:1
>
> An example of the dangers of pure democracy is all well and good,
> but I reject pure democracy even if Glen advocates it and wouldn't
> vote either way on the matter; there is no moral justification for
> the action or the mass decision behind it.
>
> _
> Rob Robertson
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:37:36 GMT
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > >
> > > [snips]
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charles Lyttle"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can you cite any widely used programs that prompt for a reboot that do
> > > > not actually need a reboot?
> > >
> > > Almost any application being installed under Win2K. If it prompts for a
> > > reboot, it's almost certain not to actually need it. (One notable
> > > exception is when it does, actually, provide an OS services update, such
> > > as a new MSI runtime, a new version of MDAC, or the like.)
> > Give me a name. How about one for NT, W2k, ME, 98, XP, etc.
>
> Whether it needs a reboot in a given OS is dependant on several things. One
> of the commoner reasons for a reboot is updating MFC DLLs in the system
> folder. Whether a given application has newer versions that the ones
> already installed (if indeed, any are installed) is going to depend on what
> has previously been installed.
>
> Example: Win2K, IIRC, ships with the latest versions (at time of shipping)
> of the MFC DLLs. It is unlikely any application produced prior to this time
> is going to have newer versions of those files. The same application being
> installed under, oh, Win98 _might_ need to install or update them. You seem
> to want to lump all Windows versions into a single pigeonhole, expecting the
> same behaviour across all of them; that's not going to happen. Further, you
> seem to be ignoring _why_ these sitations arise in the first place.
>
> Given that, I'm not sure how one could even hope to answer your question as
> written.
OK, I'll split the question into several questions.
Give one example of an application that asks for a reboot but does not
require one in NT.
Give one example of an application that asks for a reboot but does not
require one under W2K.
Give one example of an application that asks for a reboot but does not
require one under Me.
Give one example of an application that asks for a reboot but does not
require one under 98.
Give one example of an application that asks for a reboot but does not
require one under XP.
Give one example of an application that asks for a reboot but does not
require one under either NT, or W2k, or Me, or 98, or XP.
When answering the above, explain what the application should have done
to determine whether or not a reboot was required. This method should
work with Install Shield.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:43:36 GMT
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:25:09 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > You forgot to tell me what non-x86 or non-x86 clones WIndows works on.
> > >
> > > Alpha, for one. And MIPS.
> >
> > Both dead.
>
> Yet Windows (as the question asked for) - NT 3.51, I think - can quite
> happily run on either.
Could. NT 3.51 is no longer offered AFAICT. And even when it was the
current version, it was crippled on Alpha compared to Tru64, OpenVMS,
or Linux, being 32-bit only.
NT4 might still be available for Alpha, but it is still crippled in the
same way as 3.51.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:44:26 GMT
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > >
> > > [snips]
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charles Lyttle"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can you cite any widely used programs that prompt for a reboot that do
> > > > not actually need a reboot?
> > >
> > > Almost any application being installed under Win2K. If it prompts for a
> > > reboot, it's almost certain not to actually need it. (One notable
> > > exception is when it does, actually, provide an OS services update, such
> > > as a new MSI runtime, a new version of MDAC, or the like.)
> > Give me a name. How about one for NT, W2k, ME, 98, XP, etc.
>
> Whether it needs a reboot in a given OS is dependant on several things. One
> of the commoner reasons for a reboot is updating MFC DLLs in the system
> folder. Whether a given application has newer versions that the ones
> already installed (if indeed, any are installed) is going to depend on what
> has previously been installed.
>
> Example: Win2K, IIRC, ships with the latest versions (at time of shipping)
> of the MFC DLLs. It is unlikely any application produced prior to this time
> is going to have newer versions of those files. The same application being
> installed under, oh, Win98 _might_ need to install or update them. You seem
> to want to lump all Windows versions into a single pigeonhole, expecting the
> same behaviour across all of them; that's not going to happen. Further, you
> seem to be ignoring _why_ these sitations arise in the first place.
>
> Given that, I'm not sure how one could even hope to answer your question as
> written.
When answering the questions in my previous post, you might explain just
what the hell an application is doing replacing MFC dlls.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Date: 17 Apr 2001 01:54:54 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Great money
: Low cost of living.
Don't know about the cost of living in Detroit (pronounced as "daytwah" in
French). But the cost of living around Chicago is high.
What I discovered is that housing prices are about a constant but square
footage will vary. That is, you can move to Norman Oklahoma but you still pasy
$150L for a home though it's a bigger one. In my case, PRICE is the
make-or-break item, not square footage. $150K is simply too much. When the
price is too high, the square footage becomes a moot point.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display..
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:32:54 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > MjM wrote:
> > >>
> > >> tony roth wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > hate to be a killjoy but another one bites the dust!
> > >> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/migration/hotmail/default.asp
> > >>
> > >> So Hotmail finally runs (totally?) on Windows products.
> > >
> > > Nope...only home page and the graphical front-end.
> > >
> > > Whoop......de.......fucking......doooooooo.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Microsoft took the damn thing over in 1997! It took them FOUR years, 2
> > >> Operating Systems and God knows how many supporting apps to convert it!
> > >
> > >
> > > And after 3 attempts, all they've managed to convert is the home page.
> >
> > "The home page"? Just how many servers have they converted?
>
> Who the fuck cares.
>
> If it takes LoseDOS 5 servers to just convert the home page, that's an
> INDICTMENT of the their product
>
> > If I'm
> > reading what they're saying correctly, we're talking 5,000 servers to be
> > converted over. 4 years? That's about 3 servers per day, ignoring any
> > actual time spent planning, testing, etc.
>
> The ONLY thing that Mafiasoft was able to convert were a couple of
> front-end web pages. The REAL work is ***STILL*** being done on Unix.
>
> >
> > Okay, smart boy, how long would it take _you_ to roll out a conversion of
> > 5,000 servers from, say, IIS+Win2K to Apache + Linux, while maintaining
> > service for 100 million users? Let's see your deployment strategy.
>
> 1. Set up 25 Unix machines, all ready to roll out except for the users' data.
> 2. RCP the data from the 5,000 LoseDOS machines to the Windows machines.
> 3. change the entries in the DNS server.
> 4. install Linux on the 5,000 LoseDOS servers, and donate them to schools.
>
> 2-month operation, at most!
>
If they are using Exchange server, Step 2 would require the migration of
data from a proprietary format. That would take most of the time. 5,000
Exchange servers for a 100,000,000 users seems extremely optimistic. Is
there any site where Exchange server handles 20,000 users? Where I work,
17 Exchange servers are used for 16,000 users. About one server per one
thousand users. Hotmail would need at least 100,000 servers. You would
need a city of MSCE's just to reboot and apply security patches.
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
<snip>
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
