Internet provider replacement
Can anyone recommend a business class internet provider? I have been tasking with replacing our current provider. We are seeking a T1 with hosted email. Thank you in advance Neal ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Internet provider replacement
I would look at Speakeasy. They provide T1 services as well as an entire line of service hosting options (e-mail, web, dns, etc.). They also offer VOIP services. One thing to keep in mind is that no matter what provider you go through, the last mile will always be owned by your local baby bell. FYI, Kenny -- Original message -- From: Neal Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can anyone recommend a business class internet provider? I have been tasking with replacing our current provider. We are seeking a T1 with hosted email. Thank you in advance Neal ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Internet provider replacement
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Neal Richardson wrote: | Can anyone recommend a business class internet provider? I have | been tasking with replacing our current provider. We are seeking a | T1 with hosted email. Try www.mv.com (they're in Manchester, NH). We've been using them for years w no problems. Note that the GNHLUG site is at their facilities. - --Bruce -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDvqqY/TBScWXa5IgRAuH5AJ4gIFK8VjvdiGFg6uqn8knN0IYcwgCgnBRX iMr7tEldo1pcnQ7uYRHwRzM= =LLx/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
maddog: Letter to InfoWorld: Linux 64-bit since 1995!
Congrats to maddog for getting his letter to the editor printed in the most recent issue of Infoworld. A previous issue had a cover article trumpeting The 64-bit Apps Are Here! and maddog pointed out that the featured software company's operating system was probably the LAST major OS to finally make it to 64-bits. Linux did it on Alpha in 1995, and on SPARC and PowerPC soon after. Bravo! Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: maddog: Letter to InfoWorld: Linux 64-bit since 1995!
Congrats to maddog for getting his letter to the editor printed in the most recent issue of Infoworld. A previous issue had a cover article trumpeting The 64-bit Apps Are Here! and maddog pointed out that the featured software company's operating system was probably the LAST major OS to finally make it to 64-bits. Linux did it on Alpha in 1995, and on SPARC and PowerPC soon after. Well... not to toot MS's horn, but NT came out for a variety of processors, and I'm 99.9% at least one of them was 64-bit. So the magazine could have been a lot safer with saying, The Windows x86-64 Apps Are Here! But that doesn't roll quite as trippingly off the tongue, does it? ;-) So, regarding x86-64, yeah, MS is pretty late to the party. And since that's what runs the huge majority of desktops, that's really where it's at. -Ken (who's still miffed Apple didn't go with AMD for their x86-64 OS-X) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
[jobs] sysadmin wanted and compensation query
As posted a month ago (sorry for the repeat), I'm looking for a Sr. Level System Administrator who has Debian experience among other linux distros. Please refer to http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg11747.html but note that the 'Developer part' of the description is really more of a desire than a hard requirement. I need someone who can take charge of the infrastructure behind the OASIS standards consortium. The 'windows desktop support' is extremely light - only about 6 users. Interested persons should send a resume (preferably in pdf or OpenOffice) to 'hr AT oasis-open DOT org' for immediate consideration. Any responses from recruiters or 3rd-parties will be ignored. Note that we offer full medical/dental as part of our benefit package. On a related note (and why I'm postiing to discuss), I'm curious to hear from real-world sysadmins what the market pays these days. I am not asking anyone to volunteer their specific salary, but I am curious to know whether the information reported by Salary.com is indeed indicative of Linux Sr. SysAdmin positions: Systems Administrator, Sr. (base) 25th%ileMedian 75th%ile Billerica, MA 01821 $72,605$81,916 $91,628 I know this seems like a self-serving question, and I guess it is. But it has been a longtime pet peeve of mine that compensation information is not even as transparent as home prices, but yet people change jobs much more frequently than homes change hands. I'm also interested to get some discussion around how compensation has changed in the past year or two; implicating anything about the outsourcing trend, and/or the shifting of technology jobs to other domestic geographic areas like CA, NC, GA, NY ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: maddog: Letter to InfoWorld: Linux 64-bit since 1995!
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 13:28:27 -0500 (EST) Ken D'Ambrosio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... not to toot MS's horn, but NT came out for a variety of processors, and I'm 99.9% at least one of them was 64-bit. I believe NT was available for the Alpha chip. Imagine there is also a story there as well. Ed Lawson -- Edward E. Lawson, Esq. Lawson Persson, PC 67 Water Street, Suite 103 Laconia, NH 03246 Tel: 603-528-0036 FAX:603-528-3332 NOTICE REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY AND ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE This message, including any attachments, is a PRIVATE communication which may contain attorney/client privileged material and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use, or disclose to others. If you have received this message in error, please reply to sender and delete this message from your system. Thank you. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: [jobs] sysadmin wanted and compensation query
Systems Administrator, Sr. (base) 25th%ileMedian 75th%ile Billerica, MA 01821 $72,605$81,916 $91,628 I'd look at the 25th percentile as an experienced Windows admin salary, not a Senior. I'd look at the 82K mark as the experienced Linux/Unix admin or a damned good Windows admin. Then 91K and up is for the best Linux/Unix admins out there. That's my perspective, based on my own salaries, after having started a (mostly) Windows admin job last February and having just (finally!) switched back to a *nix environment December. -N ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
on hard drive failures
This seems to be the week for hard drive failures for me and my clients. Some things I've noticed have got me thinking: 9 out of 10 hard drives I've recovered have failed on the first few sectors. This is especially problematic for boot loaders and filesystems which lay out their superblocks and journals there. So, questions that come to mind: * Is that part of the hard drive especially weak due to geometry? That would suggest placing superblocks elsewhere. * Does having the essential filesystem bits there cause the drive to 'use up' that part of the disk first? That would suggest spreading around filesystem information. Then once I dd_rescue as much of the drive as possible it's time to recover the filesystems. ext3 seems especially fragile to having the first block of the drive go kaput. So: * are there filesystems where recovery has been designed in that are less susceptible to bad block damage? An ideal filesystem would allow me to lose all the files on those blocks but be able to recover the rest of the disk. * are there any maintenance routines that could be run to replicate essential filesystem information? For instance, where the backup superblocks are stored, inode tables, etc. I can't think of any server I'm running that doesn't have enough spare cycles to do something like this in a nightly cron job. So, then beyond hardware, I'm looking for suggestions as to what are likely causes of software-based filesystem corruption. My primary server lost its disk last night to filesystem corruption. There are no bad blocks on the disk (badblocks r/w test and SMART extended self test check out OK) and it's running the latest 2.4 kernel. My only theories are undetected memory errors or kernel bugs. Neither of which are logged. Short of Linux-HA what's the right way to deal with this? RAID is certainly an answer where one has possession of the machine for the first set of problems. For the no-bad-blocks problem the same thing would have occurred with the errors propagated across two disks so short of RAD-hardening the system I'm at a loss for what I might have done better. Having consistent filesystems seems like an essential foundation for reliable computing but clearly I'm not there yet. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: on hard drive failures
On 1/6/06, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * are there filesystems where recovery has been designed in that areless susceptible to bad block damage?An ideal filesystem would allowme to lose all the files on those blocks but be able to recover the rest of the disk.The new ZFS that coming in Solaris addresses this. It does some error checking on writes (and reads?) so it'll even protect against hardware issues.obLinux OpenSolaris already has ZFS and the code is available. Perhaps it could make it into Linux. And the Solaris mumble (formally known as Janus) will run Linux code so the need for ZFS in Linux is a bit less./ob Linux * are there any maintenance routines that could be run to replicateessential filesystem information?For instance, where the backup superblocks are stored, inodetables, etc.I can't think of anyserver I'm running that doesn't have enough spare cycles to dosomething like this in a nightly cron job.ZFS does some of this I think. Some SAN systems do this. So, then beyond hardware, I'm looking for suggestions as to what arelikely causes of software-based filesystem corruption. My primary server lost its disk last night to filesystem corruption.There are nobad blocks on the disk (badblocks r/w test and SMART extended self testcheck out OK) and it's running the latest 2.4 kernel.My only theories are undetected memory errors or kernel bugs.Neither of which arelogged.Short of Linux-HA what's the right way to deal with this?If it's memory errors, self correcting ECC memory helps. If it reports errors you can replace them before there's a problem. This is a hardware issue and most PC hardware doesn't do ECC. I know Sun did this in Sparc 4,5,10,20 and perhaps earlier (before 1990?). RAID is certainly an answer where one has possession of the machine forthe first set of problems.For the no-bad-blocks problem the same thing would have occurred with the errors propagated across two disksTrue. so short of RAD-hardening the system I'm at a loss for what I mighthave done better.Having consistent filesystems seems like anessential foundation for reliable computing but clearly I'm not thereyet. I'm finding for business purposes, it's not so hard to get 2 drives instead of 1 and mirror them with software RAID. About 3 months ago I was able to get 2 250GB SATA drives and a RAID card for $400. Heck on my home server: 2 20GB drives for the OS, 1 IDE card (not RAID even) and 2 large disks for data isn't too much to spend. Software RAID1 on the OS disks and the same for the data disks. In 3 years I've lost an OS disk and a data disk w/o losing data before I got replacement disks. -- A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.- Daniel Webster
Re: Internet provider replacement
On Jan 6, 2006, at 12:36, Bruce Dawson wrote: Try www.mv.com (they're in Manchester, NH). We've been using them for years w no problems. Note that the GNHLUG site is at their facilities. After 3 hours of arguing on the phone today to get someone to press 'reset' on my server at 11 I'm thinking driving to Manchester is a nicer alternative. Does anybody know of any [affordable for a small business] colos north of Manchester? -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: maddog: Letter to InfoWorld: Linux 64-bit since 1995!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Bravo! Thank you, Ted. I believe NT was available for the Alpha chip. Imagine there is also a story there as well. NT was originally supposed to run on the MIPS, Alpha and Intel chips, all capable of little endian format. MIPS was more or less still-born, and I do not belive NT ever was officially released for it. NT was available for the Alpha, and isn't any more. Microsoft dropped support for it several years ago, leaving a lot of Alpha NT customers high and dry. Of course the customers blamed Digital, not Microsoft. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: So, regarding x86-64, yeah, MS is pretty late to the party. And since that's what runs the huge majority of desktops, that's really where it's at. Sorry, Ken, have to disagree with you. There is such a thing as a server system. There are two big differences that go into making a 64-bit operating system: o use of 64-bit registers as the native registers o ability to access large amounts of virtual memory There are four minor differences that *usually* come along with those: o ability to do double-word floating point operations as one operation o ability to access large amounts of real memory o ability to handle large data busses o ability to do atomic operations over large data structures Note that the double-word floating point operation is especially useful in C, since all single-word floating point operations are expanded to double-word, then truncated back to single-word again. If you are doing lots of floating-point work (scientific and engineering), this means it typically speeds up significantly given the same number of clock-cycles per operation. Microsoft operating systems eventually did the first big difference, and the minor differences, but they (until now) have not been able to access large amounts of virtual memory. There are whole classes of problems that really benefit from having large address spaces. Data bases, for instance can have much larger tables, with fewer levels of indices. Hashing algorithms can work much better, mmap comes into its own, along with very large amounts of virtual memory being able to be locked into real memories. Movie rendering becomes more interesting when you can map the entire film into one virtual address space. Simulations can be done easier when you don't have to worry about artificial edge processing caused by lack of address space. If Microsoft had only touted their operating systems for desktop, I might agree with you, but they have been saying that they are a server operating system too, and I feel that their inability to produce a TRUE 64 bit operating system until now is pathetic, particularly when Digital offered them the code to make NT truly 64-bit back in 1992. If Microsoft had accepted the code, then the Alpha would have been the only processor to support those very large address spaces, and perhaps its fate would have been a little bit different. As it was, the Alpha was basically a very fast, incompatible Intel chip to most developers. The lack of real 64 bit support in MS products (particularly in their server products) I believe has hurt the computer industry. While we had a few applications (most of the database vendors, some CAD apps) re-write their code to take advantage of the larger address space, a lot of applications held back until MS said they were coming out with it. The article in Infoworld that I responded to was trumpeting the arrival of this address space. I simply pointed out that (once again) MS was late to the table. Apparently the Infoworld people agreed with me. In fact they wrote me a letter telling me how much their entire staff appreciated my letter. md -- Jon maddog Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: on hard drive failures
Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, then beyond hardware, I'm looking for suggestions as to what are likely causes of software-based filesystem corruption. My primary server lost its disk last night to filesystem corruption. There are no bad blocks on the disk (badblocks r/w test and SMART extended self test check out OK) and it's running the latest 2.4 kernel. Beware of SMART. There are LOTS of things we've found that can go wrong with a disk that SMART never detects and suddenly the disk goes kaput. By same token, we've found that SMART will detect lots of error, and running the disk through the manufacturer's disk test software claims it's fine. That being said, we regularly run SMART testing in the background on all our systems and have it kick the machine out of production if it detects errors. We re-install the OS since re-formatting the drive will vector around bad blocks. Obviously, this is a test environment. A production system wouldn't have this luxury. Though, you could build the system with a 3-way software RAID mirror. Upon a SMART error detection, you could remove the bad drive, re-format it and re-join it to the mirror. The 3-way mirror is to make sure you still have a RAID mirror while repairing one disk. This way you're never completely at-risk. Or... you could just not use IDE [PS]ATA drives and invest in SCSI (or fiber channel) which are *still* higher quality drives than IDE and not worry about this nearly as much. My only theories are undetected memory errors or kernel bugs. Neither of which are logged. Short of Linux-HA what's the right way to deal with this? IMO, SCSI or FC drives if this is for a production server system. -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: [jobs] sysadmin wanted and compensation query
Greg Rundlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not asking anyone to volunteer their specific salary, but I am curious to know whether the information reported by Salary.com is indeed indicative of Linux Sr. SysAdmin positions: Systems Administrator, Sr. (base) 25th%ileMedian 75th%ile Billerica, MA 01821 $72,605$81,916 $91,628 This isn't far off. You might consider checking out the USENIX/SAGE salary survey where they specifically outline exact job descriptions for UNIX sysadmins. http://www.sage.org The 2003 Salary Survey is available to the public here: http://www.sage.org/salsurv/2003SalarySurvey.pdf The 2004/2005 survey is only available to SAGE members. A brief view of the the Salary by metro area/job function section for Boston claims: YrExp GeneralistNetworking Other Server mgmt Technical lead 3..4 61.2 / 10.0--- / ------ / ---67.7 / 9.9 --- / --- 5..6 63.8 / 6.6--- / --- 78.8 / 9.471.9 / 3.3 65.1 / -0.4 7..8 72.2 / 4.9 79.3 / 4.1 --- / --- 82.4 / 6.0 92.7 / 2.7 9..10 69.0 / 2.6--- / --- --- / --- 72.8 / 2.3 94.1 / 10.9 11..15 74.5 / 4.3--- / --- --- / --- 84.3 / -2.092.7 / 1.0 The left number in each column is salary in K$. I believe the right number in each column is the percentage of respondants for that category, but I'm not entirely sure, since I couldn't find a description of what this all the numbers in the chart meant. (for anyone who downloads this salary survey, it's the chart on page 32). Greg, I hope this helps. -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: maddog: Letter to InfoWorld: Linux 64-bit since 1995!
Ken D'Ambrosio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, regarding x86-64, yeah, MS is pretty late to the party. Ahm, but isn't that *exactly* what MS Excels (pun intended ;) at? Seriously, they've been late to *every* single part to hit the computing world: WindowsX Windows and Macs had them long before MS Integrated AppsGates has been quoted they'd never sell (I believe there was Star(Calc,word... back in the DOS days) Internet MSN is where the future was supposed to be Groupware Lotus Notes Downloadable music iTunes Web browsers Netscape Honestly, I can't think of single where MS has been first in anything. But from a business perspective, that's genius. Let everyone else make all the mistakes, spend all the time, effort, and money convincing the world this new thing is a great idea. Then, when the world is finally convinced they need this new thing, but that all current implementations aren't good enough, release what you've been working on the whole time. It's worked for them for the last almost 30 years, why stop now? -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: One more bites the dust
Jon maddog Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I saw the announcement of the new Palm Treo 700w today, and thought I might take a look at it. My old phone is getting a bit long in the tooth, so I thought I might go for a new Treo. Yeah, but you're not going to miss much. The PalmOS software is a pain, there's no multitasking, the hardware breaks easily, etc. I'm on my 3rd Treo 600 in 2 years, and this one needs to be replaced to. I'm not overly hard on my phone. The screens are poor quality which go bad easily, the phone can't take even a simple jolt without powering off (which you'll never know has happened if it's on silent/vibrate mode). The ring tones aren't load enough. The display is difficult to read in bright-light conditions... I could go on and on. The 650 I don't have any direct experience with, but I know they had serious performance problems early one. I know switching between apps was extremely slow as compared to the 600. Most people I know aren't overly impressed with the 650 either. I'm thinking of ditching my Treo for a Nokia internet tablet (runs linux). It's got wifi and blue-tooth, can run xterms and emacs, and comes with Opera for browsing. It's exactly what I want, a desktop in my pocket. And it's half the price of the Treo 650s or what the 700s are likely to be. A friend at work has one and loves it. -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: One more bites the dust
Neil Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can tell you my 650 is great! You're the first person I've heard say that. How long have you had it? I loved my 600 for the first few months. Now, 2 years later, I'm extremely disappointed. -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: One more bites the dust
On Friday 06 January 2006 10:38 pm, Paul Lussier wrote: Yeah, but you're not going to miss much. The PalmOS software is a pain, there's no multitasking, the hardware breaks easily, etc. I've had Handspring/Palm hardware last for years. It won't sustain long drops, but my last Treo (a 650 that unfortunately met another fate) rolled with me in my last car, fell out the sunroof and was found about 10-15 feet away on the pavement with just a few more scratches, but otherwise perfect functioning condition. And I'm pretty sure being able to talk on the phone while working on my address book or writing down appointments in my datebook or listening to mp3s while doing something else or having email automatically checked in the background qualifies as multi-tasking, or at least close enough that I don't care. silent/vibrate mode). The ring tones aren't load enough. The display is difficult to read in bright-light conditions... I could go on and on. The volume thing is an old problem they had with the original VisorPhones too (I had one of them for 4 years) and it was unfortunate they didn't fix it for the 600s. That said, I have no complaints of the volume with the 650. And the display was much improved between the 600 and 650 too. I've never found a light condition that doesn't work with the 650. It's the kind of display that you can turn off the backlight entirely and see fine with room lighting (assuming there's enough). The 650 I don't have any direct experience with, but I know they had serious performance problems early one. I know switching between apps was extremely slow as compared to the 600. Most people I know aren't overly impressed with the 650 either. I've never had performance problems that keep it from being a PDA and a phone and I'm pretty impressed with a couple of the 3D rendered games I've tried out on it. The initial problems they had were about space concerns and those were fixed with a patch quite some time ago and I even got a free SD card out of it. I think they more than made up for that oversight. Anyway, I've never met anyone who didn't love their 600 or 650, but if you're the type who'd consider a tablet PC instead of a PDA handheld, it probably just isn't the device for you. I can't imaging considering a tablet anywhere in the same league of utility as my Treo. -N ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: maddog: Letter to InfoWorld: Linux 64-bit since 1995!
So, regarding x86-64, yeah, MS is pretty late to the party. And since that's what runs the huge majority of desktops, that's really where it's at. Sorry, Ken, have to disagree with you. There is such a thing as a server system. Oh, absolutely. I didn't want to muddy the water with the place where, as far as I'm concerned, we've already won. [Don't get me wrong: I don't mean raw figures, or MS leaving the server market, or anything. But I only see Linux expanding its grip on servers as time goes on, and as more CS students with Linux under their belt enter the workplace.] What I mean by desktops being where it's at is that that's where the fight is. Five years ago, I thought Linux was six months from being able to make inroads -- perhaps I was a bit optimistic. Now, however, I have no doubt that Linux -can- make inroads. The functionality is in place. It'll just take time for us to wear away at the huge amount of inertia (You can't get fired for buying IBM^H^H^H Microsoft) that they have. Fortunately, I'd say that roughly 1/2 of the home users Just Don't Care. They aren't looking to run any super-duper MS-specific apps or games or anything. They want: 1) E-mail 1a) To be able to watch the (virus-laden) attachments and/or links they get from their friends 2) Web surfing 3) IM Linux can do all that, NOT get (as many) viruses, AND be a whole lot less expensive. However, until you start seeing Linux boxen next to MS boxen at (say) Circuit City -- and for less money -- I don't see us making a substantial difference in userbase numbers. Which just means, of course, that we continue fighting the good fight. In other words, I violently agree. ;-) -Ken ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
