Linux-Advocacy Digest #552, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Mark Styles)
Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x.... (Rich Teer)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (quux111)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Karel Jansens)
Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x.... ("C. Newport")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("2 + 2")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("2 + 2")
Re: Why did Eazel shutdown? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x.... (Raymond N Shwake)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:58:39 -0400
On Wed, 16 May 2001 07:02:54 -0400, Anonymous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Overhead shouldn't be much
>money since you don't need office space
>but can do everything over the Internet.
>About the only capital expense would be
>broadband to the home, but most serious
>software engineers already have that already.
What about accountancy costs? Marketing? Web hosting? Travel expenses?
Media? Hardware? Employee benefits?
You've obviously never had your own business.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris,staroffice.com.support.install.solaris,comp.unix.advocacy,alt.os.unix,alt.unix
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x....
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:09:51 GMT
On 16 May 2001, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Because Sun has sales of $15 billion dollars a year, and very little of it
> was from the OS. More users using the OS and more developers
> developing for the OS means a larger market to sell hardware to -
> everything from the $999 SunBlade 100 to the top-of-the-line E10000.
I agree with this 100%. What I'd like to know is, when will the Forte
tools be made available at a more reasonable price? $3,500 is simply
too much for a small company like mine that has several machines (so
a floating license is required; the individual, nodelocked ones won't
do). After all, developers need access to compilers, as well as the OS
and hardware! (gcc doesn't cut it for serious development, IMHO,
especially for 64 bit stuff.)
--
Rich Teer
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:11:56 -0400
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9du6kt$ita$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> The majority of suppliers only supply with windows on. I have one
> >> question for you: are you trying to be stupid or does it come
> >> naturally?
> >
> > I submit that only "stupid" people can't find a system from a major
> > vendor WITHOUT Linux installed. And there's no one to blame but those
> > same stupid people. Trouble is, most people want windows preinstalled.
>
> No, the monoply is to blame. All the places that do the advertising
> advertise Windows only. That is what most people (stupid or not) see.
I see large outlets advertising Apple Computers every day. Most people see
that too, but they still choose Windows. With all these choices there can be
no monopoly. It's really that simple. Even stupid people can figure out that
they have choices. But if they can't, then only they are to blame.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (quux111)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 16 May 2001 15:45:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote in news:9dsvkg$jsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> quux111 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> news:9drvnj$bhb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>>>>> When did BSD cease to become UNIX.
>>>>
>>>> Technically it never was.
>>>
>>> Sure it was.
>>>
>>> -Ed
>>>
>
>> AIUI, BSD is not, and has never been, UNIX(tm). It *is* a Unix,
>> however. The whole "is it Unix or aint' it" argument has never been
>> less meaningful than now; none of the most popular Unixen are real
>> UNIX(tm). Solaris, like Linux, is a hybrid of SysV and BSD. The
>> *BSDs are all derivates of BSD 4.4, which incorporated pieces of SVR4.
>
>> Interestingly, the *only* "real" UNIX(tm) is UnixWare (now owned by
>> Caldera). UnixWare is on the cusp of death, and if it dies, there
>> will be *no* "real" UNIX(tm) OSes left!
>
> Actually, youre quite incorrect.
>
> The following have most recently been registered as UNIX(TM) operating
> systems:
>
> AIX 4.3.1 and higher
> Solaris 7
> Solaris 8
>
> The following have been registered as UNIX(TM) operating systems by the
> Open Group:
>
> Tru64 5.0 running on alpha hardware
> HP/UX 10.2
> HP/UX 11.0
> AIX 4.2
> OS/390 V2R4
> NCR UNIX SYSVR4
> UX/4800 12.3
> SCO unixware 7.0.1
> IRIX 6.5
> Reliant UNIX 5.43 and higher
> Solaris 2.6
>
> www.opengroup.org
>
You see how defining UNIX(tm) brings out the pendant in the
best of us.... Riddle me this, Batman: why are there no BSD's
on this list, when they can make a much better claim to being
UNIX(tm) than many that *are* on the list (such as HP/UX)?
The Open Group is a bad joke, it's *always* been a bad joke,
and my devout hope is that they will disband the stupid org and
go get real jobs. The point is that simply defining something as
UNIX(tm) has no meaning -- it's a label, nothing more.
quux111
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:12:57 +0000
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dqc06$d0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In msgid <3afb33c7$0$78412$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote: on
>> Thursday 10 May 2001 17:38
>>
>> >
>> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> >> > And you'll void your warranty. But a car isn't software and this
>> > software is
>> >> > licensed not sold. Trying leasing that car and see what happens when
>> >> > you decide to swap out the motor and change in the interior...
>> >>
>> >> At least when I buy some Linux distro I own it outright. No licenses
>> >> akin to the likes of MS at least.
>> >
>> > You think you can do whatever you'd like with that Linux setup eh?
>> >
>> > OK, change something.
>> >
>> > Try to keep it to yourself.
>> >
>> > Ooops you are in violation of the GPL - Stallman is gonna kick your
> little
>> > sisters butt if you don't share your efforts with everyone for free.
>>
>>
>> *BZZT*
>>
>> Sorry Jan, wrong again. You can change anything you want, and if you
>> don't distribute the binary, you don't have to distribute the source,
>> Simple as that. But then, you didn't actually *read* the GPL, did you?
>
> Dont' distribute it - what good is it then?
>
> Hey gang, wrote this great new version of the program that works just how
> we want it - but you can't have it. Yipee...
>
It is hard to believe that you really are as dense as you make yourself
look here, but just on the offchance that you actually are a thicko,
consider this scenario:
A large company might decide that a certain open-source program sort of
suits their needs, but not quite. They let their in-house programmers loose
on the source code and modify it until it does what they want. The program
is subsequently (Oops! com-plic-at-ed word, means :"afterwards") used
within that large company, but never released to the public.
Do they need to publish the modified source? No.
Are they in violation of the GPL if they don't? No.
Is the company management losing sleep over the fact that they now can not
share that program anymore? Who knows.
So why on Earth did you put it in your little head that a program's value
lies in the fact that it can be distributed?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb - No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!"
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: "C. Newport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris,staroffice.com.support.install.solaris,comp.unix.advocacy,alt.os.unix,alt.unix
Subject: Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x....
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 17:26:19 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rich Teer wrote:
>
> On 16 May 2001, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
> > Because Sun has sales of $15 billion dollars a year, and very little of it
> > was from the OS. More users using the OS and more developers
> > developing for the OS means a larger market to sell hardware to -
> > everything from the $999 SunBlade 100 to the top-of-the-line E10000.
>
> I agree with this 100%. What I'd like to know is, when will the Forte
> tools be made available at a more reasonable price? $3,500 is simply
> too much for a small company like mine that has several machines (so
> a floating license is required; the individual, nodelocked ones won't
> do). After all, developers need access to compilers, as well as the OS
> and hardware! (gcc doesn't cut it for serious development, IMHO,
> especially for 64 bit stuff.)
Why do you need more than one copy of the compilers ?.
I just let the developers rlogin to a decent fast box, that way
it's easier to keep everything backed up and properly under SCCS.
Code also compiles much faster on an E420 than on a desktop.
(FIVO desktop).
--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm
not sure about the universe. [Albert Einstein].
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:32:50 -0400
Jan Johanson wrote in message <3b01f11d$0$82834$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[snip]
>
>>
>> Do you have to read all your crap from magazines and web sites Jan?
>
>not all but some.
Hey! Just as long as he doesn't quote this group.
2 + 2
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:33:59 -0400
Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <3b01a496$0$2882$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Johansan wrote:
>> >I had to blink and look twice: Linux has finally made it's appearence at
>> >tpc.org and it's in first place!
>> >
>> >http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
>> >
>> >There you have it, a linux powered result of 2733 smoking past the 1699
>> >result posted for a W2K box.
>> >
>> >Well, I extend my hand in congratulations to the penguins for their
stunning
>> >entry into the world of high end database benchmarks. I'm certain
suddenly
>> >the TPC will be in style again and accepted for all to see.
>> >
>>
>> {rediculous bullcrap deleted}
>>
>> Yes Jan. As we already knew, Linux blows the crap out of W2k,
>> whether it be a single PC in single processor mode, SMP contest,
>> or a CLUSTER.
>
>What? It took twice the hardware and 4 times the cost for Linux to
>eek out a small percentage of performance over a single Win2K box.
>
>Linux has yet to show up anywhere near the real metric: the TPC-C.
>
This is an important metric. Very important. The key to a wide variety of
enterprise software.
2 + 2
>-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Why did Eazel shutdown?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:25:17 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 16 May 2001 07:02:54 -0400...
...and Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > Its obvious why they shutdown... capital venture is drying up!
>
> What I find odd about the shutdown
> is that it doesn't take much money to
> support a group of 7 programmers,
> only about a $1 million per year.
> And you only have to pay the star
> programmer an amount of $100,000 per
> year, the rest can get by on much
> less of an income, leaving extra money
> for overhead.
Eazel paid more people than just seven programmers:
Darin Adler
Josh Barrow
Pavel Cisler
Bart Decrem
Ramiro Estrugo
John Harper
Andy Hertzfeld
Don Melton
Dan Mueth
Gene Z. Ragan
Arlo Rose
Rebecca Schulman
Robin Slomkowski
Maciej Stachowiak
John Sullivan
...
That's just a sample.
> Overhead shouldn't be much
> money since you don't need office space
> but can do everything over the Internet.
Having the people work in one place does vastly increase productivity,
though.
mawa
--
I know I am only raising questions without answering them, but the
answers are not that easy, at least not until one has formulated the
question better.
-- Jim Muller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:43:35 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 15 May 2001 14:41:44
>On Tue, 15 May 2001 02:57:19 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>You seem to have missed the point, which has nothing to do with
>>conditional processing, but translation tables. What's your problem?
>
>My "problem" is that I'm amusing myself by getting you to make self-
>contradictory statements.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:43:34 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 15 May 2001 16:26:29
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>> Fuck. You're downright *astute*, kid! I'm not merely politely
>> impressed here.
>>
>> It turns out, in fact, that I've happened got a very concrete yet
>> meaningful way to answer just that question. Since you're one of the
>> very few people who seem to understand the question in a comprehensible
>> way, I'd expect you wouldn't have too much trouble understanding it. It
>> is the universe which is insignificant; the infinity of time which lacks
>> confirmation in our lives. Science transcends them both, but explains
>> neither. Meaning is words, not metaphysics.
>
>Are we thinking and therefore being here?
We are being here, therefore we are thinking.
>After all, when you get right down
>to it, what can we prove?
Matter, gravity, evolution, orgasm. These are self-evident. So what's
to prove?
>A favourite of mine has always been our perception
>of colours. How do I know I see what we both call red as the same thing?
Because the wavelengths are the same, and we both call it red.
>What you call red I could see as green, but I would still call it red and
>know it as red and no bugger could ever know I saw it differently...
No; you could call it green, but you would still see it as red unless
you have some sort of chemical deficiency or something. Just as the
color is still red, even though it is called something other than red in
other cultures. Now, if cultures somehow derived different colors, the
way they can derive different notes in a musical scale, then your
musings would have meaning.
In order for the question of whether you can prove something to have any
meaning at all, there has to be some reason to suspect that it is not
true.
>> Real convenient, maybe. Convenience is the ultimate commodity, the only
>> real value-add. The only trade-off for convenience is price, not
>> functionality.
>
>Convenience in too great levels will bring about the fall of Rome all over
>again. Decent into depravity, or perhaps slightly different this time in
>that humans may become recluses and slaves to convenience to such an extent
>that they don't bother with reproduction.
Bogus second-guessing. The fall of rome is what brought about
decadence; decadence did not cause the fall of Rome. You see? It's all
in the teleologies. Kids are taught these days that deduction is Right,
and induction is Wrong, but the fact of the matter is that the world
isn't that neat and simple.
>> There's nothing dirty about e-commerce; not at all. I just don't want
>> to destroy the web (in terms of providing value, convenience, and
>> information in its own right) to make e-commerce more profitable.
>
>Nothing dirty about what e-commerce is intended to mean. It's what it has
>come to mean which is (again) the problem.
It is the problem with all commerce, and I cannot denounce all commerce.
It is just heightened in 'e-commerce', due to the nature of the process,
which is largely virtual.
>> An email address is *information*, Michael, and the customer, not the
>> vendor, is going to be the one initiating an email.
>
>But they cannot initiate this email without the address provided and the
>company may not see the advantage in providing this.
"May not?" No, they either will or will not, depending on whether they
know that it will increase their sales. IOW, they will, or they are
stupid.
>> Well, believe it or not, they thought of that when they first starting
>> using FTP. Which is why they came up with this thing called "ARCHIE"
>> (from 'archive indexing", I thing). Imagine if there were a
>> distributed, constantly up-to-date 'index' of every file available via
>> FTP throughout the entire internet. It is automatic, provides three
>> different sizes of descriptions, and is about as lightning fast as you
>> could get a virtual database of such scope.
>
>But could Archie cope today? FTP is by nature easier to index, but harder to
>search...
Believe me, it is CERTAINLY not any technical deficiencies which caused
these technologies to be all but forgotten. Can anything cope with
indexing every FTP file today? We can't know; none try.
>> would make more sense to move the discussion part. That's happened
>> already to a large extent, onto web pages (AUGHH!). But that's like
>
>And can you explain why? Because most ordinary people find it either more
>convenient or more interesting to converse using a web interface. Otherwise,
>by your logic, they wouldn't. They have the choice between usenet and
>forums, and many choose forums. The same topics are available on both...
Yet, we know as an objective fact that accessing discussion through a
web page cannot ever be as convenient. You've gone back to the same "it
is worth what it costs and it costs what it is worth" assumption. I'm
not looking to figure out who to blame, that's the point. You're
wasting your time being concerned with second-guessing whether someone
would or wouldn't. We're talking about whether they should or they
shouldn't, and you should have the balls to admit it. Yes, I can
explain why people use the less convenient mechanism of web discussion
bases because it is more convenient (for them) than the more convenient
(objectively) system. It is because it is more convenient for the
people who wish to profit on hosting discussions. You can't charge for
either, and a web site is cheaper and easier to run than a news server.
I'm not looking to figure out who to blame; nobody is "at fault" for
acting reasonably, and I presume that everyone does. I'm looking to
figure out how to solve the problem. Then we can start considering who
should get 'the guilt' directed at them to encourage them to make
whatever minimal change we see as necessary to mitigate the problem.
Which is why I am explaining to a web designer why the problem is one
that only he can deal with, by bearing in mind, while designing for the
convenience of his customers, that he should also be designing for the
convenience of THEIR customers, as much as possible.
That's all it takes. Though I would also recommend anyone involved in a
university CS or CE program to design an alternate 'site-based remote
GUI commercial console' protocol, compatible but separate from HTTP, so
the web can return to the "server-based information document access and
cross-reference compendium" system the web is supposed to be.
>> The problem is in the word "explain". You are right; math cannot
>> explain anything. It cannot provide teleologies, reasons. No "in order
>> to", no "so that", no "because" at all, an only some forms of
>> "therefore". Math does not have "is", it has "equals".
>
>[snip]
>
>> relationships. And so we do, and we explain the world around us,
>> thereby providing Meaning.
>
>It kind of comes down to the difference between data, information and
>knowledge.
Everything comes down to epistemology; none of those words have anywhere
near as concrete a meaning as would seem necessary to say that anything
can "come down to them."
But there is a section in my book on the difference between data and
information and knowledge. ;-)
>Maths can only give us data, but we can use our knowledge to
>translate it back into information
Frankly, any arrangement of the terms is rhetorically valid and
comprehensible, but that doesn't make them correct.
Data is concrete; information is not a process, but an abstraction. It
labels the difference between data and knowledge. "Information" is just
the assignment of Meaning (the epistemological question) to data.
"Information" doesn't exist in the real world; just data and knowledge.
On a related note, you could call information "the API" for data, or the
KPI, the 'knowledge programming interface'. Information processing
theorists (programming engineers and computer scientists) would make
sense of that, I think, drawing an analogy between the brain as a
program and the data as a library.
>> It all might seem like a reduction of mankind to physical processes, odd
>> ant-like monkeys, robotic von Neumann machines. And it does, because we
>> are, but it provides our lives, nevertheless, regardless of how big the
>> universe is or how long it lasts, with meaning. And in that, it can and
>> does provide purpose, and in that, we can and do find happiness.
>
>Yes. That may be what we are, but people DON'T find happiness in that.
People do; I know because I do, and I have heard that other people claim
they are happy.
>If
>people were happy just to be intelligent monkeys, where did religion come
>from?
That's just part of being an intelligent monkey. "Give a monkey a
brain, and he'll swear he's the center of the universe." Usually meant
by atheists to ridicule the faithful. Not realizing, of course, that
this is most certainly WHY you would give a monkey a brain; it appears
to be the function of the brain to make up teleologies about the world,
to "explain" it and imagine it has "purpose".
And of course, because they do, and they are part of the world, they are
correct, and their explanations become true and the purpose becomes
transcendent, the more coherently it can be put into words.
>Newton still believed in magic. People as a society tend to shy away
>from scientific explanations for ones which seem much less likely but more
>comfortable for them.
People as a whole tend to believe what is reasonable to believe. If
they "shy away" from particular explanations, it can only be because
they are not reasonable. Science might at all times be RATIONAL, but
that doesn't and can't make it always REASONABLE.
>> Don't confuse science with technology. Just because science can explain
>> a microwave doesn't mean it can't explain the death of a loved one, to
>> your satisfaction. Are we to say that "really understanding, completely
>> and without limitation", is the point to finding meaning in our lives?
>
>And people do know how their loved ones die. In fact, most people probably
>understand it better than they do their microwave oven...
You have definitely missed the point. Nobody cares if they "know"
whether a microwave works or people die; it will happen independently of
that knowledge. The only thing people give a shit about is WHY.
Science can't explain, we're told, why loved ones die. Not and also
explain why it hurts when a loved one dies, AND how there can be any
such thing as "justice" anywhere in the universe.
>> No amount of power in the world can make a single string travel faster
>> than the speed of light, and no amount of explanation in the world can
>> describe what "strings are made of". No amount of knowledge of the math
>> of sentience gives power over sentience. The freedom of the human mind
>> which we share in our culture is not merely coincidental with the
>> understanding we have of the math of our existence.
>
>Are you sure. Once you understand something fully, you can tinker with it to
>achieve exactly the effect you want. You can even tinker before you know
>enough. It happens with genetics already.
Your statements are all trivially falsifiable. Try to stay consistent
concerning whether you're going to take this metaphoric approach or
speak analytically. IOW, OF COURSE I'M SURE YOU IDIOT. If I weren't
sure, I wouldn't have said it. "Shit happens" is your refutation of my
argument? I don't THINK so.
You cannot understand something "fully". You can never both "tinker"
and "achieve the effect you want". You can only experiment, not
'tinker', if you do not know how to do anything more. Genetics has
fallen to scientific explanation, not "tinkering".
So decide if you want to pretend that science is a big bogy-man, and
have the balls to stand behind the argument, or stop wasting time with
such mixed rhetoric. I'll argue either position, but flipping back and
forth is getting tiresome.
>> I don't know why; it just seemed appropriate. Anyway, as to the "no
>> hold on us", haven't you noticed that the optimum mix of emotions is the
>> ones we *want* to have a hold on us? Some of them, every human knows,
>> we might well be better without. The degree to which we can reduce our
>> emotions, through 'ethical calculus', to words, language, is entirely
>> under our control, if anything is. Would you want love to disappear
>> from the world? I can't imagine a 17 year old thinking that.
>
>Well... Actually, no I wouldn't. But if you understood exactly what made you
>feel like that, it wouldn't be the same.
Ever hear of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? Your words seem to
echo one of its major ramifications rather precisely; you cannot observe
the thing without affecting it. In the macro-world, though, far away
from the mathematical precision of quantum physics, this just becomes
"you cannot observe the thing without interpreting it."
Anyway, in more direct response to your statement, I'll just say, "Of
course it would."
>> Anyone interested in finding their infinite amount of dignity, learning
>> the secret to happiness, and their purpose in life, is free to email me.
>
>Sounds a bit dodgy that does...
I know; flakes-ville, without question.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris,staroffice.com.support.install.solaris,comp.unix.advocacy,alt.os.unix,alt.unix
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raymond N Shwake)
Subject: Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x....
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:52:04 GMT
"Sphinx367" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Well it will very interesting to see what happens now that Sun's latest and
>greatest can be downloaded (or bought inexpensively) and installed/tested on
>home or business machines at will (for evaluation purposes).
Unlike the "personal use" or "development only" licenses sometimes
offered, this is a full use, unlimited user offering for as many boxes you
want to install it on within your organization up to 8 CPUs.
> I've never even
>heard of Microsoft "giving away" a fully-featured OS in this manner. I'd
>imagine that this oppurtunity will give many Windows "addicts" who are
>interested in the various Unix distributions the "push" to switch over to
>Unix. Does anyone else have any comments or ideas on what effect offering
>Solaris 8 for free might have on the balance between Unix and Windows OS
>usage, particularly with regard to business (OR home) use?
Microsoft does not give anything away - certainly not the cash cows
that are the operating systems and applications, though they are often
"bundled" with (and priced into) a PC or server. It's now clear, though,
that Windows is now the most expensive operating system available for the
desktop now that Linux and Solaris are available for free download or low
cost media. (SCO's OS5 and UnixWare offerings are/were personal use only,
but still cheaper than Windows.)
Considering what I long ago paid for my copies of SCO's Xenix,
MicroPort's V/AT and Interactive UNIX, this is definitely a great time to
be playing/working with UNIX.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
