Linux-Advocacy Digest #31, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Jerry Coffin)
Re: Dell Tops Intel Server Market ("2 + 2")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ("green")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Nick Maclaren)
Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Communism (Gunner©)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Ed Allen)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Ed Allen)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Ed Allen)
Re: IE ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:30:04 -0600
In article <jJNG6.1801$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
[ ... ]
> Are you positive about the above claim? That would mean that no one COULD
> use the machine at all. And I seem to recall a lot of people did program
> them...
Of course he's positive. He's dead wrong, but that clearly has no
effect on him at all.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Tops Intel Server Market
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 03:06:05 -0400
cjt & trefoil wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>If prices are about to "drop like a rock" (your words) won't it be a bit
>tough to make money?
In the downturn in general, yes.
I'm really talking about the cost of a transaction.
The overall price of the price/performance leading server system has dropped
from $400,000 a few months ago to $180,000.
I would expect that a server could be configured for transactions for under
$20,000 with App Center Server (which includes MTS). Then simply add another
server to the cluster when the demand on the web site increases.
How many sites do 20,000 transactions per minute?
2 + 2
PS what would be great is a very cheap Linux system capable of doing
transactions.
A lot of Dell Intel servers run Linux.
I noticed that the add-on cost of the cheapest Dell server WITH Win2000 had
dropped from about $1000 to $700+. Red Hat Linux was included in the base
price.
This is fabulous competition for the consumer.
>
>2 + 2 wrote:
>>
>> "Dell creams Compaq in U.S. server sales"
>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5755923.html?tag=mn_hd
>>
>> I have made a number of posts about Dell's state-of-the-art factories,
etc.
>>
>> Dell looks at the downturn as a chance to grab market share.
>>
>> Commerce and ecommerce depend on processing transactions. Online
automation
>> of business transactions began with automated teller machines in the
1980s.
>>
>> The first TPC-C result published in 1992 had 54 transactions per minute
at a
>> cost of $188,562 per transaction per minute for five years. See
>> http://tpc.org/information/about/history.asp
>>
>> $188,562. And today thats $9 per transaction per minute for a full five
>> years.
>>
>> Guess who holds that mark, called the price/performance mark?
>>
>> Dell.
>>
>> See
http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_price_perf_results.asp?resulttype=all
>>
>> With Microsoft's Application Center Server which includes transaction
>> processing and the free fall in prices like Intel's Pentium IV chip, this
>> mark will drop rapidly.
>>
>> The Dell server already does 20,000 transactions per minute. That should
>> handle a good percentage of commerce and ecommerce volumes.
>>
>> The server system costs $182,000, including 5 years maintenance.
>>
>> Now these prices are going to drop like a rock.
>>
>> In this system, Microsoft 2000 Server and SQL Server costs only about
>> $15,000, while the hard disk and switching subsystem costs $90,000.
>>
>> 2 + 2
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:21:07 +1000
> > How about multimedia?
>
> I've noticed on my faster machine (400MHz PII) Linux + XFree86 doesn't
play
> MPG files very well. On Windows 98 SE they work just fine. Overall
graphics
> on thius system performs poorly compared to Windows 98 SE.
>
my pII 400 64mb ram and lowly ati rage II vid card seem to play them fine.
(same as windows any way)
mabey something isn't right on your system (playing a game at the same time
:) )
xfree 4.x seems slower on this computer though :(
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Maclaren)
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: 29 Apr 2001 07:18:07 GMT
In article <jJNG6.1801$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, AG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> At the time, IBM's contracts PROHIBITED any non-IBM employee from
>> programming thier machines.
>
>Are you positive about the above claim? That would mean that no one COULD
>use the machine at all. And I seem to recall a lot of people did program
>them...
Which would not disprove the claim. At one time A,T&T contracts
prohibited any user of Unix (with an academic licence) from allowing
any code developed on that system to be turned into a commercial
product. But it happened.
However, as will not surprise you, that claim is wrong. It is so
misquoted as to be complete codswallop.
The contract specified that writing any system (i.e. privileged)
code rendered the maintenance contract void - however, there were
many important things that could be done only that way (as there
are on most systems, but shouldn't be, but that is another rant).
If I recall, a user of a RENTED machine was not allowed to void
the maintenance contract, but that did not apply to BOUGHT ones.
There were a lot more details about what was forbidden, but I
forget them now.
There was one occasion where I found a serious security exposure
in MVS, but IBM would not accept the report as it could be shown
only in a privileged program. I asked how to perform the (highly
important) function and was told to write a privileged program!
Mutter. But things are no better today :-(
Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 02:39:45 -0500
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > How about Linux burner software?
> >
> > Are you guys behind the 8-ball yet again?
> No we are not, tho thanks for your concern :-
>
> "Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
> S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
> Simon777,Flatfish+++">
>
> You see,Linux does not suffer the same buffer underuns and poor process
> control that has hade it necessary for the CD writer manufacturers
> to solve these problems for Microsoft.
Are you trying to suggest that Linux gives you infinite cycles, so that
there is never any chance to to ever underrun a buffer?
Hell, I've used Linux systems that took 5 minutes just for the login prompt
to appear after connecting. Clearly system load can and will cause cycles
to be unavailable (especially considering that Linux/Unix does things like
dynamic priorities that can lower the priority of the cd-burner app if some
other app is starved).
> Flatfish thinks hes in possetion of 'new' and 'radical' technology
> , when in fact only Windows users need these 'solutions' to cure their
> problems.
Wow, Imagine that. Linus Torvolds has created an OS that magically creates
cycles.
------------------------------
From: Gunner© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:43:47 -0700
Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> No, I'm an old war vet.
>
>29 is an old war vet?
>
It is when compared to you..a 14 yr old child who has never been to
war.
When I came home from RVN..I was OLD OLD OLD at 20.
Gunner
=========================================================
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
------------------------------
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: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 02:44:19 -0500
"Jonadab the Unsightly One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > That's silly. All you need is to queue the upgrade to
> > > any given page until nobody's looking at it.
> >
> > And you magically know when nobody is looking at it, how?
>
> The OS should know that.
It should? I didn't realize they had optical sensors that allowed the
terminals to notice when someone was looking at the terminal or not.
> At work, our system (Galaxy
> running on OpenVMS 7.2-1) knows automagically when a
> certain record is up on one terminal and won't allow
> any other terminal to change it. It isn't that much
> more difficult to write the update software so that
> it keeps checking to see when nobody's using that page
> and writes the update then.
That "page"? We're talking about a standalone application versus HTML.
With a standalone application you have to kill the application on each
terminal and start the newly updated copy of it. The problem, is that you
can't just kill them all because people might be using them when you do.
> > You have to go around to each terminal and find out.
>
> Not if the system is well-designed you don't.
How do you know when someone is using the information on the screen? You
don't.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:49:58 +0100
>>> It ignored the system default. How much more plainer can I be?
>>
>> You are saying a different thing here. First you said that it ignored
>> the default printer. There is no such thing as the default priter
>> setting to be ignored. It is entirely passive in that resect.
>
> It's the same from my perspective.
Well, from out of this window, the world looks pretty flat (hell it
fooled manking for thousands upon thousands of years), but does that make
it flat?
Anyway, you didn't initially state that it was from your perspective, you
stated it as fact. As a fact, it is incorrect.
>> Not only that, but you originally cliames this was a Linux problem.
>> Your thread was entitled
>>
>> Another Linux OOPSIE!
>
> And it was a "Linux Oopsie!", again from my perspective.
Well, from out of this window, the world looks pretty flat (hell it
fooled manking for thousands upon thousands of years), but does that make
it flat?
Anyway, you didn't initially state that it was from your perspective, you
stated it as fact. As a fact, it is incorrect.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:54:21 +0100
>> Which is untrue.
>
> End of argument I think.
Ok.
>> No, if it ignored the printer, unless you were running as root or set
>> /dev/lp? to have global write permission, and told the gimp do dump
>> straight to /dev/lp? you would have seen nothing coming out of the
>> printer.
>
> It ignored the printer system wide default.
The printer system wide default specifies a default printer. That is all.
>> What it did was mark the data as raw. That is different to ignoring the
>> printer.
>
> It ignored the printer (default setting).
No, it marked the data as raw. It did not ignore the printer. If it
ignored the printer, you would have seen no printout.
>> No, if it ignored the printer, you would see no output, unless you had
>> the conditions stated above. They are two different things.
>
> It ignored the printer (default setting).
No, it marked the data as raw. It did not ignore the printer. If it
ignored the printer, you would have seen no printout.
>> You said gimp ignored the printer. It did not, because it printed.
>
> It ignored the printer (default setting).
No, it marked the data as raw. It did not ignore the printer. If it
ignored the printer, you would have seen no printout.
>> For some reason (bast known to itself) it incorrectly marked the data
>> as raw. This has nothing to do with ignoring the printer.
>
> It ignored the printer (default setting).
No, it marked the data as raw. It did not ignore the printer. If it
ignored the printer, you would have seen no printout.
>>> Here's a perfect example of _you_ getting it wrong.
>>
>> Here's a prefect example of you assuming Linux is like windows. The
>> print system works on the same idea, but the mechanism is different. If
>> the same thing happend under windows, you would be correct in your
>> assertion, however that is not the case under Linux, because the system
>> is different.
>
> Irrelevant.
If you state something as fact, the facts are relavent. If you state
something as opinion,opinions are relavent.
> It ignored the printer (default setting).
No, it marked the data as raw. It did not ignore the printer. If it
ignored the printer, you would have seen no printout.
>> You just don't understand how the printer system works.
>
> Irrelevant. I do not _need_ to know how the printer system works.
In order to correctly diagnose the problem, you need to know how the
system works. Without knowing this, you will not be able to correctly
diagnose the problem. Since you don't know how it works, you have been
unable to correctly diagnose the problem, which is why you kep on posting
incorrect things about the printer.
> It ignored the printer default setting.
The printer system wide default specifies a default printer. That is all.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:00:47 GMT
In article <9cflq9$rmv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Oh. My. God. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
>: Sounds like you just don't find your idealistic stance very
>: debilitating, casting your aspersions as you are from an ivory tower,
>: safe from pragmatic concerns.
>
>: Your standards, you see, are completely meaningless in the real world,
>: where it is whether OTHERs "believe in" force or fraud (as if anyone
>: does) which is of political concern. Libertarians just ignore the
>: problems, same as the Marxists do.
>
>Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it
>doesn't exist.
>
>The truly wise person understands that there are limits to his or her
>knowledge, and does not pretend to expound upon things he or she does
>not understand. He or she also spends at least as much time learning,
>and listening, and questioning, as in expounding *anything*.
>
>Also, the truly wise person, when angry, deals with his or her anger
>in some kind of constructive way, rather than venting it onto a public
>forum where everyone can see it, and make judgments about that person
>that may or may not be fair to the actual person.
>
>
I think you are projecting your own feelings.
Max appears more amused than angry to me.
Perhaps you should pretend you are wise and meditate on what you
posted until you understand that it fits you better than him.
--
Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:00:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>> "Zippy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > this is an amusing conversation.
>> >
>> > i use StarOffice every day. unlike MS Office, it doesn't crash my machine
>> > every 15 minutes.
>>
>> You must have a *really* bunged up system, if Office crashes it every 15
>> minutes. I run, for example, Outlook (not express) all day, every day, no
>> crashes. I run Word regularly, and can't recall, offhand, having had it
>> crash in at least several months. Access? Nope, no crashes. Excel? Nope,
>> no crashes.
>>
>> So what part of Office is crashing your machine 4 times an hour?
>
>Judging from my experience, it's the part supplied by Microsoft.
>
More likely the parts MS added to the pieces that they bought.
Every application that makes up Office was bought by MS and then
glued together to create the bundle which was forced on the OEMs
by telling them that buying Windows+Office was going to be cheaper
than Windows alone.
When it was on enough, about 70% I think, of the new computers they
began charging for it as a separate product.
So far as I have seen that is how all MS products become the "best"
and soon "only" ones widely available.
--
Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:00:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I couldn't agree more. It is only the cognitive dislexia of the
>conservative position which makes me seem to prefer the Democrats. I'd
>prefer a party half-way between the current liberals and the putative
>libertarians, if the libertarians could only see their way to
>jettisoning their anti-government rhetoric.
>
I insist that they stop believing that corporations are the highest
form of life ever envisioned.
As for Democrats and Republicans I dislike them both. Neither one
seems to believe in Constitutional government. They both serve
corporate interests above the public ones, they just don't make
worshipful noises like the Libertarians.
--
Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:07:15 +0100
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> As a user, unless the site is all *about* graphic design, I don't give
>> a flying fuck if it looks exactly as the designer intended, as long as
>> it is usable and I can find what I'm looking for.
>
> Maybe you don't, but many people do. You need to present a professional
> image to win across customers. I feel very uneasy giving my credit card
> details to company who's site looks ameturish or poor because it
> reflects badly on the company. Impressions are always important.
However, consider the situation where a company has a beautifully and
very well designed website that works prefectly and looks fantastic in
IE, but breaks horribly in NN (as is often the case). A broken and
unusuable attempt at a beautiful page is much worse than a slightly toned
down page.
Secondly, HTML was designed to degrade gracefully, so any page that
doesn't have a specified feature will not look as pretty, but will at
least be usable. Admittedly, it takes quite a bit of work to ensure a
website will gracefully degrade, but if the company is bent on having a
prefessional image on the web, they can probably afford a competant
enough web designer to make it work.
Another problem with fancy professional looking sites is that they often
take ages to download. If you want to see a prefect example of a very
fancy looking site that takes a horrible amount of time on a 33.6 modem
(the one I have at home), then visit:
www.abbeynational.co.uk
When every I do telephone banking with them, they keep trying to get me
to use the website. I keep telling them its far too horrible.
-Ed
> You may not care, but then you have proven yourself to be an evangelist
> for complete simplism.
>
> Also, anyone who still says flying fuck doesn't deserve an opinion ;)
> It's a phrase that grated on my nerves since it was coined so many years
> back
> ;). Personally, if I don't gove a fuck, I don't give a fuck. Flying at
> the
> same time sounds like childishness or some sort of fetish... :)
>
>> Decent navigation, speed of loading on my slow connection, a search
>> feature, and useful content are far more important.
>
> All important, but to impress you need everything, including elegant
> presentation.
>
> MP
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
