[rescue] OT: Linux and USB on Intel

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 01:00:57PM -0700, Robert Novak wrote:

> >   I'm in a rush...I'm sure you understand my point.
> 
> Yeah, and I'd like to think you understand mine. 
> 
> On some platforms, newer machines are more efficient in terms of
> space/power/heat. We've had this discussion before. And on some 
> platforms some users/admins need to run binary-distributed software.

I think you are begging the question.

The only point being made here is that the old servers can still do the
same job.  Further, with newer and better OSs, they can run even more
than they used to.

No one contests that sometimes you have jobs too big for them, or that
if you have the money, you can get more power in a smaller space.

> And as far as PCs as servers... something doesn't have to be the
> best thing on the market ever to be useful and usable. I expect
> the dual P3-500 on my coffee table would run rings around the Netra
> T1 in the computer room. Both are still useful. The Intel warning label 
> on the P3 doesn't make it unable to serve web pages or databases,
> or to do fileservice and DNS/NIS, any more than a 4/ part number on
> a SPARC workstation/server. 

True, but unless it has an exceptional motherboard and other hardware,
it will never hold up well.

Most PC motherboards, for example, are junk. 

Once in awhile you find a bargain gem, but usually you need to spend
good money to get good product.

-- 
UNIX/Perl/C/Pizza____________________s h a n n o n at wido !SPAM maker.com