Linux-Advocacy Digest #660, Volume #33 Tue, 17 Apr 01 08:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Mathew)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Tom Potter")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Jan Vorbrueggen)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Jeff McWilliams)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Jean-David Beyer)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Greg Cox)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft gets hard (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Baseball (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: hmm getting tired of this! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display.. (Matthew Gardiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:13:17 +1000
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Gunner =A9 wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2001 21:00:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>=20
> >>
> >>Sliverdick forgets that THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET WAS IN A DEPRESSION
> >>(INCLUDING HIS BELOVED SOVIET UNION!!!)
> >
> >Depression? Maybe you meant recession?
> >
> >--=20
> >Roberto Alsina
>=20
> Not in 1925-34
The economy was not in a recession in 1925 to 1929
>=20
> Gunner
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "So it was that four hours later, carrying two hundred cigarettes, comple=
tely drunk and with a=20
> half-naked, unmarried Filipino lady, I emerged, behind the writing desk i=
n the Headmaster's=20
> study-simultaneously breaking a hundred and twenty-seven school rules. Th=
e Chaplain, now=20
> seventy-four and impatient to get his Archbishopric, had finished the tun=
nel just a hundred yards=20
> too early."
>=20
>=20
------------------------------
From: "Tom Potter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:32:53 GMT
"silverback" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:57:07 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >chrisv wrote:
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback) wrote:
> >>
> >> >just remember we tried that bullshit lazy fairy economic bullshit once
> >> >in this country. It ended in a spectular failure called the Great
> >> >Depression.
> >>
> >> Learn how to trim posts, Comrad.
> >
> >Sliverdick forgets that THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET WAS IN A DEPRESSION
> >(INCLUDING HIS BELOVED SOVIET UNION!!!)
>
> gwad damn yer a fucking idfiot. It was the lazy fairy economics of the
> 20s that produced the depression dipstick.
The depression was brought on by government meddling (The restrictive
Smooth-Hawley trade bill)
in the free market, and Roosevelt inherited a serious recession, and turned it
into a long depression,
that was ended when he got America into two wars, and had to turn to the
business community
to produce arms.
It is also interesting to note, that Clinton/Reno put a kink in the economy by
bringing
a monopoly suit against Microsoft, the engine that was driving force behind
the economy. One has to wonder if the suit would have been filed if Gates had
been a large donor
to Clinton's personal endeavors. (Presidency, NY Senate race, in-laws fortunes,
Library, etc. )
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
------------------------------
From: Jan Vorbrueggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: 17 Apr 2001 11:37:56 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen) writes:
> Because IBM customers want Linux so they can scale up to loads that
> Intel hardware and even Alphas cannot get to ?
The load by itself is not a problem - you can get large multiprocessor systems
based on x86s and Alphas for comparable prices. What VM with Linux virtual
machines give you is complete isolation of those different copies of the OS
- each matched a single user - from each other, which significantly eases
administration and makes the whole setup much more secure, both from the point
of view of one user of another and of the outside world (a compromise of one
virutal machine doesn't compromise any other). The only alternative is a setup
such as that provided by Pitbull (from Argus Systems), which basically is a
B2-level OS with mandatory access control and some extra b&ws.
Jan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff McWilliams)
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 10:08:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charles Lyttle wrote:
>Monte Milanuk wrote:
>>
>> Monte
>I don't understand your comment. "SoftPLC" does run on x86 type
>computers, but no factory I know is going to use consumer class PCs
>running Windows. Think what could happen in your steel mill if a BSOD
>stops everything in the middle of a pour. There are lots of PC type
>modules for factories. PC-104 is just one standard form factor for
>industrial use. There are lots of industrial OS around that can handle
>industrial operations. Linux is just one of several.
Just to add my two cents here. I do software application development for
the industrial automation sector here in the Detroit, Michigan area.
The acceptance of Windows NT as a platform to run software on the plant floor
has become more accepted in recent years than you think. Mind you,
most of the uses of the NT platform based systems are not necessarily
critical to the production process per se. Rockwell Automation does
produce the SoftLogix Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) software
that almost exactly works like a standard Allen-Bradley PLC5 but runs
under Windows NT. However, most of the automation integration I've seen
being done at Fanuc Robotics (where I do a lot of work) still uses 99.99%
Allen-Bradley PLC5 and ControlLogix 5500 series PLC's. And of course,
the robots themselves are still run with proprietary OSs.
However, a really important emerging area in industrial automation
is to bring together Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
functionality and begin merging this with a manufacturer's ERP systems
(like BAAN) to push production schedules down to the floor, and to pull
production, downtime, and maintenance information up.
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is a big buzzword these days.
Everybody wants to identify production bottlenecks and improve the
OEE number.
Rockwell Software (part of Rockwell Automation) has an entire line of
plant automation software that is entirely NT based, including
Plant Metrics, Historial, and RSSql. GE Fanuc's CIMPLICITY software
is similar. This software is designed to gather data from mainly
PLC's and store it in a database (e.g. MS SQL Server) and used to
generate reports, including OEE.
We've been writing custom SCADA packages that run under Windows NT
for years. Even in a place as dirty as the Ford Woodhaven
press plant I've worked on Dell Optiplex PC's running 24/7.
This was not my idea,
by the way. They do have failures. The standard Western Digital IDE
hard drives in the Optiplex series typically last about 3 years before
they begin to malfunction. CD-ROM drives die an early death as well.
I've been suggesting using IDE RAID mirroring for about a year
now but this particular automation customer just doesn't seem to be
dedicated to improving their reliability.
You wouldn't normally think of data gathering as being as critical
as the second-to-second process control that's handled by the PLC's is.
However, gathering accurate OEE information is becoming more imporant
all the time. I've been working with one customer who is going to install
a dedicated Windows NT 2-node cluster to guarantee that production data
is always gathered. The Compaq CL-1850 is sitting on a bench at
the office right now.
Some other interesting things:
Rockwell Automation provides a set of devices called PanelViews.
These have typically been small embedded devices running QNX or some other
embedded OS, with a small touch-screen face. Proprietary Rockwell
software runs on the device providing simple (circle, square, text)
indicators and push-buttons that help control plant automation.
Their newest PanelViews are Windows CE based. These devices
boot up into Windows CE, then immediately load a Citrix WinFrame client
and attach to a Windows Terminal Server server. Using this method,
they run a full copy of Rockwell Software's RSView32
plant visualization and control software for Windows NT. The architecture
requires a decidated Terminal Server box as well as a dedicated
RSView server to drive the PanelViews.
When it comes to PC hardware for the shop floor, I would MUCH rather
go with some standard off the shelf hardware in a 4 or 5U rackmount
"industrialized" enclosure and provides some additional cooling fans
and air filters and configure them with redundant IDE RAID mirroring.
This would go a long way toward improving upon the reliability of those
Dells I see being used. It's not my decision, however. I'm primarily
a C++ software developer, the guy sitting in the corner shaking his head
when he hears some of these silly things being discussed.
Jeff
------------------------------
From: Jean-David Beyer <[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 06:20:56 -0400
Charles Lyttle wrote:
>
> Monte Milanuk wrote:
> >
> > Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > 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.
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that. When I left a steel mill in early 1999, the big
> > thing the automation vendors were starting to push was 'SoftPLC', where the
> > idea was that for normal stuff that doesn't require high speed i/o and
> > distributed processing, rather than having dedicated racks of special
> > processors, they could have cards connected to an x86 PC and have the CPU do
> > the crunching -- kinda like a Winmodem, but a WinPLC, since the operating
> > system they were touting for this task was WinNT4. Scary.
> >
> > Monte
> I don't understand your comment. "SoftPLC" does run on x86 type
> computers, but no factory I know is going to use consumer class PCs
> running Windows. Think what could happen in your steel mill if a BSOD
> stops everything in the middle of a pour. There are lots of PC type
> modules for factories. PC-104 is just one standard form factor for
> industrial use. There are lots of industrial OS around that can handle
> industrial operations. Linux is just one of several.
I thought that a few years ago, the U.S.Navy tried a computer
controlled battleship, and the computers ran Windows NT (probably 3.51
in those days), and it crashed so bad the ship had to be towed into
port. (I may not have the facts exactly correct, but it was pretty
much like this.) Maybe the computers were not exactly your
bargain-basement PCs, but the software must have been. If the U.S.Navy
is dumb enough to use Microsoftware in a battle-critical system, why
would not some private industry be just as dumb?
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 6:15am up 15 days, 13:03, 3 users, load average: 2.27, 2.16,
2.03
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[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 10:57:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
<snip>
>
> I thought that a few years ago, the U.S.Navy tried a computer
> controlled battleship, and the computers ran Windows NT (probably 3.51
> in those days), and it crashed so bad the ship had to be towed into
> port. (I may not have the facts exactly correct, but it was pretty
> much like this.) Maybe the computers were not exactly your
> bargain-basement PCs, but the software must have been. If the U.S.Navy
> is dumb enough to use Microsoftware in a battle-critical system, why
> would not some private industry be just as dumb?
>
>
The version of the story I heard was that the first ship of a new class
of Navy ship was out testing a new ship's control system programmed
using a custom database running on NT4 and the DB software crashed, not
NT. I believe the story goes that the captain said in his report that
the DB software crashed a couple of times and was successfully restarted
but the ship was towed in on the third crash with the system left in its
crashed state for later analysis by the developers...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:03:11 -0500
"Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9bgnkk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <u4PC6.4121$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Each process can't address more than 4GB at a time. With VLM extensions
a
> > process can address up to 64GB.
>
> Just like an 8086 addressing >1MB.
An 8086 cannot, under any circumstances in an IBM compatible PC address more
than 1MB. Ever.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 06:10:34 -0500
"Jean-David Beyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I thought that a few years ago, the U.S.Navy tried a computer
> controlled battleship, and the computers ran Windows NT (probably 3.51
> in those days), and it crashed so bad the ship had to be towed into
> port. (I may not have the facts exactly correct, but it was pretty
> much like this.) Maybe the computers were not exactly your
> bargain-basement PCs, but the software must have been. If the U.S.Navy
> is dumb enough to use Microsoftware in a battle-critical system, why
> would not some private industry be just as dumb?
Why let the facts get in the way of a good dis, right? Your lack of
knowledge on the issue doesn't seem to prevent you from jumping to
conclusions.
The facts in the matter are a) that it wasn't a battleship, and b) that they
were running a beta version of the control software which did not validate
entry fields. As such, when an operator entered a 0 into a field, it was
stored in the database, causing all subsystems that depended on that
information to fail with a divide by zero exception.
The application could not be restarted because every time they restarted it,
it would re-read the data values and crash again, thus the ship was dead in
the water. Further, the ship wasn't towed in, the ship had alternate
propulsion mechanisms onboard because it was an experimental project running
beta software.
The Navy and the canadian company that wrote the software stated that the
problem was not related to NT in any way. In fact, the canadian contractor
laid the blame on the Navy for not installing their validated version before
the incident, which would have prevented the problem from ever occuring.
The navy, however, believed that they should shake out the vessel and see
where the potential failures might be so that in real emergency situations,
they would know how to respond.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:44:21 +1200
JS PL wrote:
>
> "David Ehrens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:aFHC6.18762$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > ...
> > > That looks pretty proportional to their claim of 32,000 worldwide!
> >
> > Microsoft partners include companies who have several MS-certified
> > (MCSE, MCP, MSD) employees on staff, or who at one point were interested
> > in riding the Microsoft wave. I am one of the many former "paper"
> > partners that MS had at one point. The advantages to these programs were
> > minimal, aside from the legitimacy that certification confers on
> > individual technicians. For instance, we had to pay distributor prices
> > 5-10x higher than Compaq, Dell, and Gateway for product, were
> > continually beat up by educational "partners" who were selling product
> > illegally at academic discount prices, and as a company outside an urban
> > hub, were routinely passed over (in referrals) in favor of preferred
> > partners in major cities, in some cases in other states. It was a big
> > disappointment. I know others who bailed out of various MS programs.
> >
> > I don't care if Microsoft can prove they have 500,000,000 partners.
> > Their allegiances lie with companies in their size and weight class, not
> > small consulting or integration outfits.
>
> So before we get away from the assinine Linvocate statement that "there is
> ONE word for a Microsoft Business partner, extinct"
> Since you actually are or "were" classified as a Microsoft Business Partner,
> I can safely assume that your now "extinct" like the other 32,000 that he
> claims are now extinct, since all business partners of Microsoft are
> supposedly EXTINCT? Or could it be that there are really NO business
> partners who are extinct, or such a small percentage that it mirrors the
> natural rate of extinction?
>
> You see, it's these stupid assed statements that will be the death of Linux.
> Normally when someone is choosing between two people to do business with,
> they WON'T choose the guy that's bad mouthing and making proposterous
> statements against the competitor. Statements like, "there's one word
> for......." show nothing but immaturity and poor judgement. Not good
> qualities.
Just out of general curiousity, what is your occupation and what company
do you work for?
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:48:02 +1200
<snype>
Well, as far as I know, Sir Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson, the
slicers and dicers of government aren't doing anything right now (both
either retired, or act as consultants for the ACT Party), may be the US
could woo them with a nice salary package.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:50:14 +1200
Give the memory test ago, should only take around 30 minutes. oh, btw,
I couldn't be bothered upgrading to KDE 2.1, maybe that could be the
problem?
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hmm getting tired of this!
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:56:02 +1200
No corporate's piss in NZ party's pockets. Any wiff of corporates
supporting parties, and I can promise you, the party will not win the
election. Also, we don't have a pollution problem here. Admittedly,
our major export is agriculture,however, we do have industry. The
Environmental Ministry comes down on any companies flaunting the law.
Constant testing is done, and any companies that do breach the law are
severally punished.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:07:04 +1200
I top post so you see my response as soon as you open it. I am making
life easier for the reader. Thats unless you like scrolling down 20
lines of text before you get to the reply?
Matthew Gardiner
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Matthew Gardiner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 6 Apr 2001
> >Well, thats due to Aaron. Why the fuck should I spend half my time triming
> >the post because of his (Aarons) supa-long sig. As you can see, I am now
> >conforming to the rules...Don't beat me master, Don't beat me!
>
> The lack of quoted material seems to indicate that it might be due to
> you. Personally, I have a newsreader that trims sigs, and Aaron, thank
> the gods, manages to properly delimit his. Besides, I would recommend
> simply not replying to Aaron at all; oh, and also learning how to not
> top-post.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display..
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:09:22 +1200
<snype>
Or grab a nice, dandy new S/900z Mainframe from IBM.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
