Linux-Advocacy Digest #679, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Matthew Gardiner")
Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux (Techno Barbie)
Re: Can I use GPL? (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Weevil")
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed ("Flacco")
Re: Dell Meets Estimates (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:42:14 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > There was a version of dBase for the TRS-80? News
> > to me. Sure you don't mean it's predecessor,
> > the "Vulcan Database"?
>
> Im sure. dBAse II ran on the Apple II also. Do you know how?
If it did, I bet it involved putting a CP/M
computer in an expansion slot. :D
[snip]
> > There certainly isn't any. CP/M ran on a different
> > CPU from the IBM-PC. It had not yet been
> > ported to the 8086.
>
> Then why did IBM pay off Kildall?
Same reason MS later paid off Digital;
they had clearly ripped off big hunks of
the design, and it wouldn't take *that*
much creativity to make a lawsuit out
of it.
[snip]
> > I'm trying to drag it back to my point;
> > the PC was a better development platform,
> > and developers at the time were able to
> > recognize that.
>
> I dont care about deveopers. The conversation started about the
> relatives merits (or lack) from a user's point of view.
No, I don't think it did. The stuff about
merit came into this thread when I made
the argument that the merits of Windows
had been what attracted developers, and
that this was what Microsoft's little
empire was based.
I was certainly speaking of merits
for development at all times.
[snip]
> > You don't seem to take *my* word
> > for anything, you know.
>
> Start getting some things right.
Won't "half-right" do? :D
[snip]
> > Brandt, Randy. "Enhancing AppleWorks" (video tape),
> > July 1993, Quality Computers
> >
> > From what I can tell, it appears that Quality
> > Computer was a software house that produced
> > AppleWorks add ons, and this Randy Brandt
> > was a programmer for them.
>
> "... this Randy Brandt". You really are clueless about the A2 world,
> arent you?
You mean there's *another* Randy Brandt
besides this one?
Or do you just mean he is a famous
Apple II diehard?
[snip]
> > Any suggestions? I'd particularly
> > like to find out what Brandts source
> > was.
>
> As an Appleworks addon programmer, I'd say he had plenty of sources. Try
> the Softalk reader's pools.
I fail to see what sources an AppleWorks add-on
programmer would have so especially.
What would the Softtalk reader's pools do
for him?
[snip]
> > > Apple IIs with SoftCards, maybe? Hmmmm?
> >
> > Sticking a CP/M machine into an Apple II
> > on a card is not a particularly useful solution.
>
> It as so not useful that it sold tons, and several versions of Cp/M ran
> on it.
Hacks like that will sell to hobbists, yes,
but businesses have better things to do
than that.
It's like the PC-on-a-card add-ons for
Macs. There's a small market, but it
doesn't really amount to much in
the grand scheme of things.
[snip]
> > That's because the early 8 bit machines-
> > even the ones that had rudimentary
> > operating systems- were too small for
> > meaningful database work.
>
> No they werent. Unless you can WP, DB, SS meaningless work.
You might want to read a little more carefully.
I certainly do not call word processing or
shreadsheets "meaningful database work";
and the glorified cardfiles you could get- like
the one in AppleWorks- hardly count.
[snip]
> > A few people were programming a precursor
> > to dBase.
> >
> > 144k floppies and 64k of RAM do not make
> > for very impressive database systems, though. :(
>
> Appaently they were better than 0k floppies and 0K ram.
Well, yes, but you could get *real*
database from any number of sources;
you just had to get a minicomputer.
Sure, it cost a little more, but it would do
the job.
Databases are one of the most popular
uses for computers, and DOS had
lots of them. They were widely used;
because it could do many of the tasks
you used to need a minicomputer for,
as long as the scale was not to big.
And it was a lot cheaper.
[snip]
> > Lots of people wrote for them. They
> > were *much* cheaper than the minis, and
> > they had things like graphics supports that
> > the big computers usually didn't.
>
> Careful.. you are dangerously close to saying something nice about the
> micros.
Is that bad?
[snip]
> > Appleworks had three modules, a word processor
> > that was decent, a spreadsheet that was rather
> > primitive and a database that was primitive to
> > the point of useless (a sore point for many
> > integrated packages, actually.)
>
> Appleworks was Sooooooooo bad it sold and sold and sold...
Sure. It was cheap software that took
good advantage of the Apple //e. It was
quite reasonable for a word processor, and
usable for light spreadsheet duties.
The //e was, after all, cheaper than the IBM
PCs of its time. Sure, Commodore 64s
were even cheaper, but they ahd terrible
keyboards, slow disks, and they didn't
have 80-column text.
In 1981, however, the PC was up against
the Apple ][+, which also had a terrible
keyboard, no lowercase, and only 40
column text.
Faced with the PC, Apple corrected
these shortcomings and gained some
breathing room, but in the long run
they just weren't going anywhere
with a 6502 in there.
[snip]
> > I suspect you mean something funny by "reports". ClarisWorks
> > couldn't generate reports, either.
>
> I suspect you mean something funny by reports. I mean what comes out
> when you generate reports.
I mean the kind of things programs
like Crystal Reports do, or what programs
like RPG did for years.
> > But it could embed life spreadsheets or images in other
> > documents. At the time, this was radical.
>
> You're contadicting your self here. Before you said it wasnt too
> integrated.
ClarisWorks was plenty integrated. *Microsoft*
Works wasn't.
[snip]
> > AppleWorks was not really all that innovative;
> > it was a good implementation, that's all.
>
> What was better, no.. what was even at that level in the micro world at
> that time?
There were other integrated
packages, but I am not familiar enough
with them to tell you what their strengths
were.
Since you know everything about early 80's
micros, perhaps you could point out
AppleWorks' competition, and tell us all
how exactly they fell short of AppleWorks
standards?
It would boost your argument considerably,
if you did.
[snip]
> You have been dissing it for 10s of messages, and now you say you don't
> mean to suggest it was a bad product???
Yes. Exactly. :D
[snip]
> > I give Woz great credit for getting the cheapest
> > graphics system ever seen out the door- but
> > that doesn't make it the best, just the cheapest.
> > By 1981 the C64 was better at graphics *and*
> > cheaper, so I discount that one.
>
> I say again... engineers of the time considered it a work of art, a true
> innovation.
In 1978 (or was it 77?) it was the best
you could have for the price. In 1981 that
was no longer true.
Some engineers may have considered it clever,
but I consider it a kludge.
[snip]
> > But the Apple II had some serious
> > drawbacks. Not having lowercase
> > really put a crimp in it for some
> > applications- like word processing.
>
> ... an kits were available.
That is not much of an alibi. You
really should need an add-on kit
for lower-case support.
The Apple //e fixed this, but
by then the tide was already
turning, if indeed it had not turned
entirely.
[snip- MS BASIC]
> > Using *that* for things like disc access
> > programatically was most entertaining.
>
> It worked.
Actually, many programs dispensed with
it. What they did was to call directly into
the internals of the disk controller code
to read and write sectors, and to hell with
the filesystem.
That was a lot faster, and you didn't
have to crap around with BASIC.
ProDOS fixed this, but it was a bit
on the late side.
[snip]
> > I was just guessing. Sounds like you
> > haven't used the II+, the model current
> > in 1981.
>
> You guess a lot. You assume a lot.
Well, it could be that you are
comparing 1987 Apple IIs with
1981 IBM PCs because you
feel this will help your case...
but if so, you really should let me
do the reverse, don't you think?
You have shown little knowledge
of the changes the Apple II underwent
in the aftermath of the IBM PC's
arrival.
[snip]
> > :D
> >
> > I mean, there reasons for using big iron
> > over PCs for some things, but I can't think
> > of anything for which the reason to do so
> > would be "the PC just can't do it".
>
> What reasons are there for using big iron for office work?
What do you mean by "office work"?
If you mean the work done by MS Office
and equivalents, there is no reason; mainframes
are terrible at it.
If you mean "work done in the offices
of business", the main reason is that
this stuff is highly critical and the bigger
offices do not want to trust their
critical data to some johnny come
lately technology.
This isn't superstition; mainframe software
tends to be very stable, because it is
very mature. Some people *do* think
that not crashing is rather important.
[snip]
> > You really want to know?
>
> ... actually? No.
D'oh!
[snip]
> <snnip> how'd it feel?
Felt great!
> Mainframes run older software? My Tandy Model 102 is a mainframe?
No. The Tandy Model 102 is an '80s
computer. A young whipper snapper. A
veritable babe in the woods.
I had one of those once. Neat little
toy. So cute. Adorable, really.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:44:32 +1200
"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:TwcO6.16527$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e5tq9$hpa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Most of them are now wandering Seattles' 1st avenue hanging around the
> > > soup kitchens on skid row! :-))
> > Seattle, the home to the two biggest cons, Microsoft and Boeing.
> >
> Boeing is moving to Chicago....
Oh, so now they are joining the inefficient, bloated, crap, money hungry,
gas guzzling US motor industry. Why aren't I surprised?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:49:16 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip- unbearable repititions AARD silliness]
> > > I know ho m$ did it. First they lucked out with IBM.
> >
> > I agree with this, but I wonder if you know
> > anything about it, beyond the sentence you just
> > wrote.
>
> I wonder if you know anything about anything. IBM--> Gates --> Kildall
> --> Gates --> monoply.
Yes, quite possibly more than you do. But at
least you aren't repeating some of the silly
stories I've heard.
I guess we are on the same page on this one.
[snip]
> > You don't say how they managed it. You don't
> > say why these vendors had to accept MS's
> > deals rather than using some other software
> > instead.
> >
> > Other software *did* exist. IBM would sell
> > you genuine DOS, not to mention DR-DOS.
>
> Pricing. The CP/M offered by IBM has hugely overpriced, as you have been
> told.
CP/M was a Digital Research project. IBM had a deal
with MS so they could sell MS-DOS themselves;
they renamed it PC-DOS but it was the same code.
> DR-DOS was sabotaged. First by messages inthe window$ beta, then by the
> window$/apps budling/licensing - as you have been told.
You need to get your timelines straight. The Windows 3.11
beta happened *after* the ascendancy of Windows; it
can't explain how Windows became ascendant, still
less how DOS did so.
> > There was GEM instead of Windows 1-3;
> > There was OS/2 instead of Windows 95 or NT.
>
> Not in the beginning. GEM didnt run window$ apps.
GEM ran *GEM* apps; and I believe it had
its first 'killer app', Ventura Publisher, before
Windows first (Excel).
Had GEM taken off, we would know be
arguing about whether Digital Research
had unfairly crushed Microsoft. :D
> > There was even Unix.
>
> Didnt run window$ apps.
Ran Unix apps, though.
> > Why did these OEMs let MS push them
> > around?
>
> predatory, anti-competitive behavior.
You never exactually connect the dots;
that's why it comes across like black
magic. Apparently if Microsoft passes
mean-sounding memos around, the OEMs
somehow all have to submit.
This makes no sense.
[snip]
> > No. Developers follow the *tools*; that's why
> > Photoshop and PageMaker were Mac apps
> > not PC apps.
>
> You... are... wrong. Developers follow trhe money.
Why did not Aldus make Pagemaker for the PC,
first and only? That was where the bulk of the
market was.
[snip]
> It seems to me, froom doing a little diggin and research (something you
> dont see,m to be able to do) the dBase was out before the PC. It was
> ported. im not sure from what.
It was a upgrade and port from the "Vulcan Database";
I think this ran on CP/M.
It was considerably enhanced in the process.
[snip]
> > They can, just like Apple IIe's can use >48k.
> >
> > But *for developers*, it still sucks. It is a serious
> > impediment.
>
> Too... BAD.
Yes, it was too bad for the PC that important
products were developed on the Mac, because
it provided better tools in areas that mattered
for those products.
No amount of marketshare could change this.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:50:42 +1200
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e8e6n$ino$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e81s6$7bi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > DirectX, registry, COM (I know that Solaris has it, how can it compare
> to
> > > Windows' COM?), DCOM, COM+ (This is equilent to J2EE system + Solaris.
> How
> > > many KLOC does WebSphere has?).
> > > Just a couple of things of the top of my head.
> >
> > They support open standards. Grab a SUN box, there will be OpenGL
>
> In NT since 3.5, in 9x since 95 OSR2.
But never pushed. DirectX was a "suck in the developers, then when they
want to move, they can't because there is no DirectX for anyother platform"
plan.
> > , Java,
>
> Not an open standard.
Anyone can adopt it, as long as it to the Java charter, if it isn't, they
can't call it Java.
>
> > Netscape,
>
> Netscape? Standard? That isn't even funny as a joke.
Ok, its the industry standard in that it is on more OS's that IE.
> > TCP/IP
>
> In NT & 9x too.
Linux is fully TCP/IP compliant, however, I am not too sure about Solaris.
> >, NFS and numorous other open standards compliant add on's.
>
>
> > Maybe instead of Microsoft re-inventing the wheel, the invest some of
> their
> > super normal profits into making a more stable OS.
>
> You mean, like 4 Billions of them?
>
> NFS is not applicable in a PC eviroment, there has been a talk about it
> recently. If you have root on *your* machine, then you can have access to
> everything on the NFS mounted directory.
Why would you give the end user the root password for their machine? you
don't. Maybe you should go back to school and learn the first rule of a
role out.
> Don't include the GNU utilities in Solaris, just the parts that Sun wrote.
I never was.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:51:45 +1200
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e8e70$ino$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e8994$dp1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > SCO CEO interview prior to the released of Windows 2000. Read that,
then
> > come back.
>
> URL?
>
Haven't got it, it would be around 2 years ago. I am not too sure whether
zdnet or news.com have achives back that far.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Techno Barbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 02:03:17 GMT
I decided to switch to Linux after trying to reinstall MS Word on a new PC
I had just purchased. Of course, when I installed Word I had to call MS due
to they sent me a nice e-mail informing me that copying Word on more than
one PC was illegal. I then called there support desk to get Word unlocked.
The sales person then probed me why I was trying to install in on another
computer, and asked if I knew it was illegal to copy the product on more
than one computer. She then started to ask me a few settings on my PC, and
after I had enough, I told her to forget it I was not going to use it
anymore.
Having tinkered with Linux for more than a year, I finally made the break
with Windows and only use it to play games. Although I cannot install
programs that are not RPM's yet - and editing configuration files are
confusing to me - I did get Star Office up which is the main thing I use my
computer for.
I really wonder how MS new security measures on their software, is going to
effect the average user. For me it was enough to tick me off and make a
switch to another operating system.
Well off to learn something called the command line :-)
Techno (as in the music) Barbie
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can I use GPL?
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 19:10:16 -0700
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 02:40:30 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |Ivan Popivanov wrote:
> |>
> |> Hi,
> |>
> |> I went through a fair amount of material about free software and
> |> still, I'm not sure whether I can use GPL or LGPL in the following
> |> situation:
> |>
> |> I have some source code, which I want to make freely available.
> |> However, I may like to use this source code in a commercial
> |> application. It looks to me that I can't do that if I release the
> |> source code under GPL or LGPL. The problem is that most of my c++ code
> |> is contained in header files (inline functions) therefore if I apply
> |> any of the GNU licenses I will have to release the source code of my
> |> application too. I understand that I should made all the changes to
> |> the released code available, but I don't want to make my application
> |> source code available. Is my understanding of the licenses correct?
>
> Yes, if you release code under the GPL or LGPL you do need to make the
> source code available.
>
> If the code is entirely your own, you can also license the same code
> sepreately under any other license (even closed source) for special
> customers.
>
> Releasing the source code is the whole point for licenses like the GPL,
> BSDL, etc.
>
> |Take it for what its worth. I purchased GNU Pro Toolkit and Source
> |Navigator from Cygnus for $150. It is the egcs c++ compiler that all
> |distros use now and no mention of GPL in their license agreement was
> |ever made. Even Sun Microsystems sells this stuff at a low price. I
> |suspect the primary purpose of GPL is to keep MSs' mitts from
> |controlling linux.
>
> Have you looked at all the files in the distribution/CDROM ?
>
Nothing on the CDrom.
> The GPL does not prevent you from selling code, it doesn't even
> limit the price. It does require you to provide the source on
> request. Have you asked for the source?
Yes, source was given for the egcs compiler and some of its tools.
The Source Navigator has no source code available. At a price yes.
>
> I tried to look at their web site, but it just redirects to the
> RedHat site now. How long ago did you buy this?
>
1998.
> --
> Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
> -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
> xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
> a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 02:13:56 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:jnZN6.2473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:5jYN6.48460
> > As for my not being open to debate on the fact that the 68000 was far
> > superior to Intel's offerings of the time...I am also not open to debate
> > that the sky is blue. I just don't find it interesting to debate that
> which
> > is not debatable.
>
> Actually, the sky isn't blue. The sky is colorless,
Heh. The sky is blue, Eric, unless you live on another planet. On Mars,
for example, it's red.
> but due to the light
> filtering properties of the atmosphere, when light is reflected off the
> earth then reflected back from the sky, it appears to have a blue color.
> Which is why the stars aren't blue when we look at them from earth.
> But you're right, it's uninteresting to argue that, despite the fact that
> you're wrong.
I wondered if any of the resident wintrolls would actually try to claim that
the sky is not blue. I figure somebody probably would, but I assumed it
would be as a joke. I didn't think somebody would actually be serious about
it and try to give some pseudo-scientific explanation for it.
For the record, though, you're wrong. The sky is blue for the same reason
my shirt is red (and doesn't merely "appear to have a [red] color").
Incidentally, oxygen isn't clear, either, if light passes through enough of
it to be affected. Look around the web and see if you can find out what
color pure liquid oxygen is.
> But you're right, it's uninteresting to argue that, despite the fact that
> you're wrong.
Yup, it's uninteresting to argue about it, but it was interesting to see
someone try.
> The 6502 was superior to the 68000 in many ways. For instance, nearly all
> instructions took only a single clock cycle to execute, but the 68000 had
> more cycles available.
No, the 6502 instructions took more than one clock cycle to execute. The
only two you *might* be correct about would be INC and DEC, but I doubt they
took less than 2. It's been years since I touched a 6502, but I'm
absolutely sure that not more than a couple (if any) took only one cycle.
Nearly all (or maybe all) took 2 or more, with most of them taking more than
2.
The equivalent instructions on the 68000 did usually require more cycles,
but that's extremely misleading since the 6502 was an 8-bit chip and the
68000 was a 16/32 bit chip with a much faster clock.
And the Intels of the time were saddled with a poorly thought out segmented
architecture, so they shouldn't have even been in the running. Why IBM
chose Intel over Motorola for their line of PCs is probably a fascinating
story. I wish I knew it.
--
Weevil
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 02:14:12 GMT
> First, I'd ask why these requirements are stated in this way. If your
> needs are for a complete and exact copy of Office 2000, why not just
> keep using Windows and Office 2000?
<snip>
> Again, why switch if what you have works for you?
<snip>
> You mentioned several times that you were looking for exact
> feature-matches between the Linux stuff and your Windows stuff. In my
> mind, that's kind of a dumb approach because all you're really saying is
> that you don't want to change at all -- you want everything to look and
> act exactly the same. If that's the case, why switch at all?
You're being obtuse here - there are LOTS of good reasons to want to get
rid of MS-License-ware while keeping the same functionality.
I think the original poster is asking for a little too much at this point.
While you can set up a good office environment with Linux-based software,
you're simply not going to get a drop-in replacement for Windows desktops,
servers and applications.
In terms of migration strategy, instead of sitting on the sidelines and
checking back every year or two to see if a switch is possible, I suggest
setting up an evolutionary pilot program. Get a Linux server, and a few
workstations, and set them up as best as possible. If there are any geek
wannabe's in the organization, ask them if they'd like to be Linux guinea
pigs and give them dual-boot machines. Make sure they undertand that this
is a work in progress and an experiment, and that this is NOT Windows. You
want them to boot into it several times a week and try the Linux-based
alternatives to their MS software. Get feedback from them. Be sure to
try different software packages for the same application - just becauseone
browser sucks doesn't mean all Linux browsers suck (ditto for other
standard application types).
If you have any server apps, you might consider rewriting them bit by bit
using Java servlets and JDBC. You can run a Java server on your existing
NT machines, then just move your installation to Linux servers when the
time comes. Platform independence is good.
In the meantime, DO NOT UPGRADE YOUR COPIES OF WINDOWS, OFFICE AND
INTERNET EXPLORER. In addition to avoiding new licensing terms that MS
will use to try to lock you into MS products, this will give you a
stationary target while evolving your Linux installation. Evolve and
upgrade the server and workstations over time until you start to
approximate a usable environment that does not have the MS license branded
on its backside. Then you can switch without a lot of pain. You will
then be free of the MS License forever.
In short, I think the idea of wholesale removal of MS products and
replacement with Linux products (or any competing product, really) in one
fell swoop is inadvisable. Plant some Linux seeds and let them grow. Just
remember that you have to provide some sunlight and water in the
beginning.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 19:16:20 -0700
quux111 wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:9ebrta$6f6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> >
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9eb1ir$rrr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > If you're looking for a scalable system, that's the
> >> > ultimate: you can scale from a basic single processor server all the
> >> > way up to the high end machine, without much more work than putting
> >> > in a new machine. There is no equivalent to that in the Linux or
> >> > Windows worlds, and it gives Sun an important selling point: they
> >> > scale further.
> >>
> >> That is in no way true. Linux scales from far lowre than solaris to
> >> nearly as high. Both will run on anything from a single processor
> >> machine (linux goes to lower ones) through mainframes up to
> >> supercomputers (where solaris goes slghtly higher).
> >>
> >> Linux is one of the most scalable OSs on the planet, along with
> >> solaris.
> >
> > No, it isn't.
> > Once you got to high end, Solaris kicks Linux to the ground without
> > even trying.
> >
>
> This is meaningless PR-speak. Do you work for Sun, or what? Solaris on
> SPARC hardware *can* scale up to about 62 CPUs (the SunFire boxes can go
> that high), but the efficiency of that scaling is debatable -- the per-CPU
> cost is much higher than, say, a System 390 mainframe. It's even higher
> than an SGI Origin machine running an equivalent number of MIPS CPUs.
>
> And if you're talking about clustering (Beowulf-style), Linux is *far* more
> efficient than Solaris on equivalent hardware. Solaris x86 is a complete
> pig, in fact, and Linux on SPARC competes pretty well with Solaris until
> you get into the 4-CPU range.
>
> I've never understood the fascination with the "high end" of computing.
> Low-end and midrange is where all the action is; 4-CPU SMP is the sweet-
> spot for most manufacturers, and clustering is taking a lot of the
> limelight from the traditional 32-way and 64-way SMP boxes.
>
> Solaris is a fine OS; I've used it for many years and I like it quite a
> bit. On commodity platforms like x86 (and I expect Itanium too) Linux is a
> better solution than Solaris. On SPARC, Solaris is probably better, but
> that's hardly a surprise, given that Sun controls both the hardware and
> that software.
>
Performance wise, yes linux is better than Solaris x86. I have chosen
Solaris over linux for the time being because of superior on-line
documentation. When this poor old IBM quits, I'm getting a Sun Sparc.
> Regards,
>
> quux111
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
