[rescue] OT: Linux and USB on Intel

[Linc Fessenden]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, David Passmore wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 03:29:23PM -0400, Linc Fessenden wrote:
> 
> > Hmm..  Seems to me that Sun and Ibm is pushing Linux as a solution on
> > their hardware which is decidedly not commodity x86 junk.
> 
> I challenge you to point me to a SPARC system at a reasonably large company
> that came with Linux installed from the factory. As for IBM's push for Linux
> on the zSeries, I'd like to see an example of this as well running at a
> large company, and I'd like to know what applications it is running.

http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/lx50/features.html
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/os/linux/
 
> > What??  This is that same hardware that windows runs on right?  And it's
> > Linux that thought them that?  Take a look around man - There are Linux
> > servers that are running on cheap commodity 486 hardware and early
> > pentiums that have been running reliably without so much as a reboot for
> > years...  How does that show people that hardware failures are normal and
> > it's ok to replace machines constantly.   Hell, I use Linux on older
> > machines to make them *keep* working and be useful.
> 
> Are you claiming that x86 hardware in general, has an equal or greater
> mean-time-to-failure than dedicated UNIX hardware from manufacturers like
> Sun, HP, IBM, and hell, even Apple? I think several people on this list
> would disagree with you.

I don't recall ever saying that?  What I did say was that Linux has
nothing to do with teaching people that cheap hardware that blows up is
the way to go.  That distinction, my friend, belongs properly with
Windows.
 
> > Got news for you there too - Your opinions are getting in the way of
> > established facts.  The software you are referring to is not Linux at all
> > but GNU software, which was a hot item *way* before the first Linux kernel
> > came out.  Linux, while it uses some GNU software, also uses and supports
> > some non-free software as well, in fact, quite a bit of it.
> 
> Linux could not exist without GNU software, period. In fact, I challenge you
> to build a Linux system without any GNU software. Good luck.

I never said that either - sheesh!  What I said was that the GNU software
you are referring to is *NOT* Linux.  It pre-exists Linux by quite some
time, in fact, I recall it being the *hottest* thing to install a bunch of
GNU software on your early Sparcstations.
 
> As for my comment about intellectual property, there is significant
> intersection between the Linux 'community' and others... and I'll leave it
> at that, since it's a subjective observation that can't be 'proven', but is
> patently obvious.

And I suppose you lump in the NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD community there
as well?  It's the same stuff after all since we use all that GNU software
together.

> > And as for the OS concepts from 20 years ago being OK today, Linux isn't the
> > perveyor of that, but look instead at Sun, and IBM, and HP/DecpaQ..
> 
> I'm genuinely curious here. What do you mean? How is Linux more modern and
> mature than any of these operating system offerings? Can you name some
> examples?

Linux code base and userland software matures exponentially faster due to
it's huge developer base.  Linux/Gnu developers are not hampered by suits
dictating development lines and generally create and update software that
enhances and attaches to the current technology and problems they are
using/tackling at the time.

> > I am not picking a fight here, but dang man...
> 
> Look at your domain name. You're a zealot, and I'm okay with that. I also
> realize that that means that this will be more of an argument than a debate,
> and that you see me as attacking Linux (and I am). In fact, if I weren't so
> bored, I likely wouldn't have replied. :)

Sorry again, that is not my domain name - that's my friend who hosts this
particular mail account for me.  My domain name is
linc.homeunix.org..  Furthermore I use and run SunOS, HPUX, Irix, NetBSD,
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and MACOS, on every kind of hardware you cvan imagine
from junk x86 to old uVax - so a zealot I am not.  I am a fan though.  I
see a lot of advantages to running Linux and where is falls short, I am
willing to help out and or wait for the inevitable and quick improvement.
 
> The fact remains that several companies are migrating from big iron to x86
> boxes running Linux, and there are documented cases I could give you URLs
> for, if you like. I could also relate my personal experiences with this
> phenomenon. Though I have no figures to prove it at the moment, it is my
> conjecture and experience that Linux is eroding other UNIXes, *not* Windows,
> and that it is in fact killing the only real hope we have of ridding the
> world of Windows and x86, making Dave McGuire's worst nightmare come true
> (even though he doesn't seem to see it the same way that I do).

That is a fact that I will argue with you.  While you may see Linux taking
the place of Unix boxen, I see the other side..  In my company I have used
Linux to replace *countless* Windows NT, and 2000 servers - making the
hardware and services run infinately more stable than it's microsoft
equivilent (and I use that term very loosely).

I have seen several instance where businesses change from Unix to Linux
but mostly that was because of a necessaary hardware upgrade.  $1000 of
Linux machines can outperform $1000000 worth of old Vax equipt - for short
term use anyway, and byt the time the PC parts start to break down, they
have already been depreciated to nothing.

As far as I am concerned and I bet many will agree, the only way to get
rid of the windows and x86 problem is to convince Apple to lower their
darn prices.

-- 
-Linc Fessenden

In the Beginning there was nothing, which exploded - Yeah right...