Ronald Matthews wrote:
> Stanislaw Flatto <compaid@shoalhaven.net.au> trolled:
>
>
>>"Unbiased testing"(?!)
>> From personal experience (25 years in aerospace testing) I
>> learned that: "On a plane you can always draw a stright line
>> through any three points, if it is thick enough." Q.E.D.
>
>
> Does this mean that on a jet you can draw a straight line through
> any four points? If it is fast enough?
>
> We'll leave the thickness to you.

It depends if "plane" is geometrical or vehicular.

Have fun
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm

me.

I suppose that may be part of the difference in the way I see things.
Being an experienced C/C++ programmer professionally, open source
guarantees I can, at least, extract the functionality that I need.
As to libraries, it can be annoying, but for the small and mid scale
projects, its not usually to hard to punch down through the code and
fix obsolete calls. Worst case, you have to write a little code that
produces the old functionality using the new API. And given that it
is open source, once you've updated the code, you post it, and
everyone that is interested can benefit; whether that is 5 people, 500
people, or 500,000 people is irrelevant to the excercise.

I don't mind so much the loss of hardware, I take care to preserve
access to components that I may need later; but I *really* hate loosing
a particular functionality while I still have the hardware to make it
work.

Someone claiming to be Ronald Matthews wrote:

> ... it is much harder, and more expensive, to find _really_
> qualified linux people than it is Windoze people.

Ah ... but show me "_really_ qualified" Windows admins: someone who
knows enough of the internals of the system to dig into it when things
aren't as they should be, (or as the organization would like them to
be). There are some out there, but I would argue that they're just as
scarce as equally qualified Unix or Linux admins.

Applying patches and "service packs" every couple of weeks is no more
"system administration" (and requires no more qualifications) than doing
the equivalent on a Unix or Linux system is (well, perhaps it requires
more patience and persistence). There are _really_ qualified people
in both camps, and there are (or appear to be) many more who "know just
enough to be dangerous" in both camps as well.

> Linux is an alternative to unix, not windoze.

Other Linux distributions have squeezed (or "tried to squeeze") Linux
into a "substitute for Windows" mold, with varying degrees of success
(usually dependant primarily on what the user ultimately needs).
Slackware (in my opinion) hasn't tried to do that, and that's to its
credit. I'm having a little trouble with this, but I agree with you!

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone claiming to be Ronald Matthews wrote:

> ... there is plenty of Open Source stuff that is no longer
> "supported" and the most recent versions of these packages use
> obsolete libraries that you may, or may not be able to find on the
> internet. And unless you are an experienced C/C++ programmer, you
> might have to hire somebody to modify this stuff to run with modern
> libraries.

All true, but at least with OpenSource, you have that option. With
proprietary software, once the vendor stops supporting it, you have NO
option (well, except to purchase whatever they replaced it with, if they
in fact replaced it).

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sylvain Robitaille <syl@alcor.concordia.ca> trolled:
> Someone claiming to be Ronald Matthews wrote:

> > ... it is much harder, and more expensive, to find _really_
> > qualified linux people than it is Windoze people.

> Ah ... but show me "_really_ qualified" Windows admins: someone who
> knows enough of the internals of the system to dig into it when things
> aren't as they should be, (or as the organization would like them to
> be). There are some out there, but I would argue that they're just as
> scarce as equally qualified Unix or Linux admins.

Just pick up the phone and call microsoft. If you bitch enough
you'll find someone because that is where they are. And paying for
the OS gives you the right to talk to them.

> Applying patches and "service packs" every couple of weeks is no
> more "system administration" (and requires no more qualifications)
> than doing the equivalent on a Unix or Linux system is (well,
> perhaps it requires more patience and persistence). There are
> _really_ qualified people in both camps, and there are (or appear
> to be) many more who "know just enough to be dangerous" in both
> camps as well.

Rubbish. Windoze "patches" install themselves. Comparing windows
service updates to linux patches is laughable.

> > Linux is an alternative to unix, not windoze.

> Other Linux distributions have squeezed (or "tried to squeeze")
> Linux into a "substitute for Windows" mold, with varying degrees
> of success (usually dependant primarily on what the user
> ultimately needs). Slackware (in my opinion) hasn't tried to do
> that, and that's to its credit. I'm having a little trouble with
> this, but I agree with you!

Good for you. But we wouldn't give slackware credit for not
bothering to address the issue. It was most certainly not a
strategic decision on PV's part.

cordially, as always,

rm

> Windoze "patches" install themselves. Comparing windows
> service updates to linux patches is laughable.

For a simple XP workstation, that works well enough as it rarely
matters that the computer does a reset on its own, and thus the system
stays up to date. On the other hand, computers that have continuously
running critical applications can not be allowed to do the auto reset,
so the best that seems safe to me on those machines is to allow the
download but always "supervise" the install and reset in order to
minimize impacts on the remainder of the infrastructure.

That said, there is still an order of magnitude difference in skill set
or willful overconfidence between installing windows service patches
and Linux kernel patches or system software updates. Though its not
as bad as some make it out to be.

> Good for you. But we wouldn't give slackware credit for not
> bothering to address the issue. It was most certainly not a
> strategic decision on PV's part.

I disagree there, a strategic decision to avoid or not do some
particular thing still is a strategic decision. And when that
decision keeps the product focussed on its core constituency and
internal mission statement, then perhaps credit certainly should be
given.

rwwff@yahoo.com <rwwff@yahoo.com> trolled:
> > Windoze "patches" install themselves. Comparing windows
> > service updates to linux patches is laughable.

> For a simple XP workstation, that works well enough as it rarely
> matters that the computer does a reset on its own, and thus the system
> stays up to date. On the other hand, computers that have continuously
> running critical applications can not be allowed to do the auto reset,

Computers continuously running critical applications had better have
backups that can take over while updates are going on. If your
computer doesn't have a redundant backup computer then you are
either not running critical applications, or you don't know what you
are doing. And that applies to all operating systems.

cordially, as always,

rm

clarification: I'm not talking life and safety critical, but critical
apps to the business operation.
context: automatic updates in XP with automatic resets permitted.

> Computers continuously running critical applications had better have
> backups that can take over while updates are going on. If your

Sorry, but you are unrealistic about what smaller companies are willing
to spend. Maybe over there in Silicon Dreamworld you can get owners
of smaller companies to buy what it takes to allow the words redundant
and automatic to be used in the same paragraph. Backup systems that
can be brought online manually while maintenance is done on one
individual CPU, that is about the best you can rationally expect in
such environments.

And as much as I think "automatic" and "redundant" are cool; in my
experience, even with medium sized companies, data protection and
manual redundancy are more than likely what they really have, even if
they might wish to say they have the other. And to a certain extent,
the CFO's are probably right in not spending the money to acquire the
word "automatic". Granted, its always a risk analysis, what does it
cost us if we are truly down for x hours, multiplied by a likelyhood
factor, and a present value factor, vs the direct cost associated with
purchase, installation, and the present value of the required extra
continued attention to acquire and keep the word "automatic". In
most cases, short of people actually physically hurt, the analysis will
come out against automatic, and in favor of data protection and manual
redundancy.

Besides, why else would they pay salaries to IT folks if not to here
stories about how they came in at 2 am to swap out CPUS or replace
failing drives...

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:05:39 +0000, Ronald Matthews wrote:

> ray <ray@zianet.com> trolled:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:30:13 +0000, Ronald Matthews wrote:
>
>> > Unbiased testing and comparison:
>> >
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/canada/gett...s/default.mspx
>> >
>> > cordially, as always,
>> >
>> > rm
>
>> You can certainly rely on MicroSoft for unbiased testing and
>> comparison of Linux and MS.
>
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft promoting a
> valid comparison that has their OS on top. There is no question
> that you assholes would crow from the top of your lungs, if
> Slackware won some comparison.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm

I would be amazed. I would be astonished. You would have to pick me up off
the floor if Slackware won a comparison that was published on an MS web
site!

ray <ray@zianet.com> trolled:

> I would be amazed. I would be astonished. You would have to pick
> me up off the floor if Slackware won a comparison that was
> published on an MS web site!

And wouldn't you be equally "astonished" to see a Windoze victory
published on a linux website?

cordially, as always,

rm