Sure, whatever. Asimov was a very proud and -very- loud atheist.
He most certainly was!   In fact the short story I mention showed it with the ending - his wry irony was always amazing.
He viewed religion as an important part of historical human existence, but in the context of modern utility, religion is now unnecessary. Religion is now a complete waste of time...
What was that quote (more paraphrase - from maybe Arthur Clark???) - "Any sufficiently advanced technology appears magical" or something like that...;-) Religion is what got civilization where it is today.   Now unfortunately it's irrelevant in that it's become entirely hypocritical...
I am going to build or buy a Linux box and was wondering what Sound card is best supported in Linux? Preferably one that RedHat 6.1 will autodetect and configure for me.
If you pick a Sound Blaster card (including the recent Sound Blaster Live!), then you'll be pretty safe and good to go.   I setup the basic version of RealServer 7 on Red Hat 6.1 and stuck in a cheapy Sound Blaster 16 ISA card (in an EISA slot) and RH's "sndconfig" utility found it right away.   This is in preparation for giving RealProducer 7 a shot.   I found that RealProducer doesn't seem to like ALSA drivers (prefers the OSS drivers), so if you have a Sound Blaster card, you probably won't have much of a prob.
Also, does anyone have any recommendations for what Video Card has the best combination of speed 2D/3D, OpenGL implementation, and open source drivers (though they don't have to absolutely be open source, it is a preference)
As for video cards, I'm not into that stuff but Matrox cards are supposedly very good and have decent Linux support.
I am mid-level user who can compile my own kernel and I have 4 or 5 Linux boxes, but none with high end video or sound. Thanks for any help, Fox
Kernel compiling is fun...;-)   Although I've discovered that most of the latest kernels shipping with the "Red Hats" (like Red Hat 6.x and Mandrake 6.x/7.x) are precompiled with sound modules enabled, so you might not have to do anything.   It's also preferable that you load your sound as modules anyway...
Anyway I was told to price solutions for producing audio and video content. Windows Media encoder and the server is free with IIS and RealProducts are EXPENSIVE.
I want the ease of WMP in WMP format on the stability of *nix/BSD. Oh and free too.
Real offers the free "basic version" of Realserver 7 for Red Hat and its clones.   Catch is that you're limited to 25 streams (and something else is missing, I think).   I have it running on Mandrake 6.5 and Red Hat 6.1 and although I haven't really put it through its paces, it's still a nice piece of work - and for free!   To do the live streams, you need RealProducer 7, which they also offer as a free basic version for Linux.   This product is unfortunately beta (or better, alpha) and needs a little work - but I'll putz around with it some more.
The one reason why I prefer Real's products is the fact that you have more granular management of bandwidth consumption - critical for dial-in users with slow modems, and I've seen some WMP stuff that is REALLY crap!   You also get a real nice web interface to configure and graphically monitor the server.
As an ISP, I expect that you'd obviously have far more than 25 simultaneous streams, but if you distribute 25-stream licenses across several cheap Linux boxes, you'd save yourself some bucks...   It would probably make sense to distribute this kind of stuff anyway.
does anyone know where i can find, online, a copy of asimov's story "The Thousand Names of God"
Unfortunately I don't but since you mention Asimov, he did write a short ditty called "The Last Question" (which also deals with the topic of religion and science) that so impacted me when I was a mere pre-teen, that I ended up reading the man's entire non-fiction works!   You'll notice that the most brilliant of scientists - particularly, physicists seem to have the most thought provoking ideas (and respect for, IMHO) about religion and science...
Yes... (other than me getting on Yahoo or Google or something to look for such links... hint hint), anyone having links to such, please post!
Mandrake and RedHat aren't known for feeling efficient. They feel more like windoze unless you cut down on the massive GUI crap they like to set up. The side-by-side comparison won't be fair unless you're running the same window manager, with the same mouse (this makes a lot of difference to feel, IMHO), and with a comparable video card.
Since this thread dropped off the list (I'm writing this on Thurs.) not sure if you'll even see this response...;-) but in the case of my comparison, the 2 machines were virtually identical, hardware-wise, ie., both Compaq Presario 5000 models.   Both have the same on-board video (SiS 530 w/4MB) but my Mandrake is using an S3 Virge PCI card w/4MB that I added whereas the NetBSD box is using the onboard...   However, neither were running the X version of seti@home software (stuff was running in text mode - no window manager needed!) so except for how fast the console refreshes with either video, I'm not sure if that would impact it.
I know that the NetBSD kernel (especially after I recompiled it for my hardware, removing the unncecessary junk) is pretty streamlined as compared to my Mandrake's kernel (which I recompiled too, but there's so much other stuff there anyway), but it's been cool comparing the two regardless!
If you still find you like NetBSD more, then great, use it. As long as you use an OS which does what you want and you know how to use it, you've got my respect. (i.e. I'm not one of those annoying linux zealots.)
I could almost be considered a Linux zealot, but I'm very open-minded (and recognize that the *BSDs are what's really powering the 'net).   I consider this a learning experience towards getting into finding my way around a "commercial" UNIX.   It's been kinda fun.
On x86 it kicks butt too.   A (subjective) side by side comparison between my K6-2/500, 160MB RAM Linux Mandrake 6.5 box vs. my K6-2/450, 64MB RAM NetBSD 1.4.1 box, both running (at the time) the 1.x seti@home clients, was pretty dramatic, IMHO.   NetBSD was kickin'!   It just felt more efficient...   Which is why I went head with running 2 simultaneous processes of seti@home on it, and it ain't even breathin' hard!
What's the advantage of NetBSD over OpenBSD? The advantage of OpenBSD (of course) would seem to be security. Why would I choose NetBSD instead, since OpenBSD is based on it?
I had to go through the very same process...   If I were putting my box out on the network (not behind my firewall), then I would pick OpenBSD, hands down.   If I'm into applications, etc., and general all-around support, it would FreeBSD.   I picked NetBSD as a personal decision - it had the apps that I wanted, it is ported to almost everything, and as I posted previously, it purports to not release code before its time - sortof like Debian GNU/Linux, where your programmers are willing to spend that extra time to try to get it right.   Of course that means that releases come out later, but as a newbie, it's nice to get an install to go right the first time and not get frustrated!   I just liked their low keyed style, that's all.   No hype.
You need to decide what you want to do with your box - that will give you an idea of which one to pick.
I don't mean to be disrespectful or anything, but can anybody tell me a single reason why I should choose BSD over Linux or Windows?
I did it as a learning experience.   I felt that it was probably closer "in structure" to commercial Unix than Linux, and since I had little or no experience with Unix, I thought that it would make a nice transition from Linux -> *BSD -> Unix.
I've never once seen BSD software advertised or shrink-wrapped. Does that mean all software would have to be downloaded over the internet?
I believe that places like CheapBytes offer the usual $2 CDs.   I also believe that each of the *BSDs offer CDs from their sites as well.
Is it only good for hobbyists or ISPs, or am I missing something here?
Probably good for both but being a sysadmin (and supervisor of sysadmins) it's been a GREAT learning experience!   Admining NT teaches you nothing, IMHO, whereas admining one of the *nixes is truly fascinating and makes you think in a truly organized fashion!
Well, seeing as the Seti folks stopped allowing 1.x clients yesterday, you are in trouble now:(
Well... they said that it would happen on 3/6 and it didn't!   I'm looking at (switching between) both my NetBSD processes right now and one is at 6% completed (meaning it uploaded its work unit and downloaded a new one maybe in the past hour?).   The other process is at about 95% completed, so it'll try probably in the next half hour or 45 minutes.
Initially I thought their statement about not upgrading certain 1.xs meant that this would effectively kill them but then I began to get the impression that it may have meant not porting them to the newer 2.x version but still accepting the results.
Well... I'll let 'em keep going as long as they can... I just wish that seti's software team would allow some "outside" (and "seti-blessed") OSSers to port 2.x for NetBSD!
I have a single x86 NetBSD 1.4.1 box amongst my Linux boxen.   Once I got it installed and compiled me a new kernel (wow... how easy!), I haven't had much chance to get back to foolin' around with it.   Now's my chance.
I have to say that when I was trying to determine which *BSD to try, it really boiled down to FreeBSD vs NetBSD.   Reason why I picked NetBSD was because of their low-key, no hype profile and a pledge to "release no code before its time".   It's just a nice, all around good system and I got 2 processes of seti@home running on it too, although the seti folks have ceased supporting the netbsd version of their software and have no plans to upgrade it to the 2.x version...  :-(.
What was good was that it came with instant support, no questions asked, for all of my hardware (including ESS Solo-1 sound chip) plus it had USB support before Linux did, by the way! -)
Try reading the New York Times on Sunday morning. If it takes you less than three hours to get through it, I'll be amazed.
Try reading the New York Times *7* days a week for the past 25 years and see how the content has gone to crap too...   When we have to use something like the NY Times or Washington Post as an example of "upper echelon" and what's right with a newspaper, then we truly are in sad times.
It's unfortunate that something like the NY Times and the now rag sheet Wall Street Journal (which over the past 10 years has focussed more on "expose-style" and so-called "investigative reporting-style writing", ala, the National Enquirer) have degraded down to nothing.   "Articles" are no longer "reporting the news" or "reporting the facts" but are actually "editorializing" the story, giving opinions and impressions (in a NEWS column - not the editorial page) rather than fact, with little data to back up the statements.   Much of the so-called content becomes a contest as to who can include the most descriptive adjectives and adverbs to fill column inches.   Sadly, alot of what you read across the country is regurgitated news from one paper to the next (and as an extensive traveller, I have read quite a number of local newspapers from across the country).
You would be surprised that some of the best reading comes from local neighborhood or small town papers when compared to the "national" ones.   Add to this papers like USA Today (believe it or not), which has so much to report (since they truly are "national") that they don't have chance or enough space to fill the column with useless drivel.
The trend towards "e-ing" everything (and to those posters who are sick of "e", count me as one who is too), can be useful in that you can often "customize" your content (remember the big selling point by some ICPs regarding how you could customize your own electronic newspaper?).   Regarding electronic books - having the web gives you a much broader distribution media (I *refuse* to call it "e-distribution") in that you are given the choice to read a variety of materials that authors might post that would most likely never be published by the established book publishers.   In essence, it takes the alt.*.creative news groups (which I have posted stories to) to another level (particularly with the.pdf format that gives you the ability to add graphics if you want).
Anyway, no flame intended, it's just that the NY Times has lost it's luster...
Is anyone out there actively lobbying the government to officially endorse OSS solutions rather than proprietary software? It seems to me as a taxpayer that I would like to see the vast number of government projects out there actively evaluate Linux as well as Solaris and NT as platforms.
Alot of us are trying, believe me.   Most of us have OSS snuck in the background but contributing none the less...   The more "public" uses are seen at NASA with their Beowulf cluster and at NIST.
There's a FOSE conference coming up next month and one of the seminar tracks includes a session on Linux.   However I wish that more on OSS was scheduled to be discussed at this.   The timing of FOSE is really good considering all that's going on right now, but seems no one in the D.C./MD/VA area appeared to push it for this year's conference...
By PoS, I assume you mean a thin client running Linux, like this?
Wow...   That's a nice looking unit.   Grovel grovel... I want one.
But I know I probably couldn't afford it... -)
You know, the whole thin client/Net PC thing may really take off when/if flat screen monitors (like the IBM model in your link) come down in price.   That's why folks/.ed that website of the guy who hacked the $99 ($299 in some locations) flat screen i-opener.
Global Services isn't paid to push IBM products, they are paid to give the customer what the customer asks for. Sometimes you get what you ask for if you already "know" what is best for you. If you ask for advice, they will plug IBM, of course, but let you do your own research and help you whatever you decide. Their goal is to make money by helping you and making you want to call them back the next time you need help.
And here is where the IT department needs to really do some research and not just follow the Pied Piper of Redmond.   What often happens is laziness, relying on you (the provider) to make the decision, and then when things go sour, they drop you.   I guess that's the risk you take for being a provider...;-).   I could never do it and respect the fact that you can!   In fact, I kinda feel sorry for you 'cause I know your job must be tough - dealing with clients who don't have a clue (and you have to pull teeth to figure out exactly what they want), but either way, you'd still make $$$ off 'em.
If your unit can push OSS as a viable solution, and not just Linux by the way - the (free as in beer) *BSDs are currently the "backbone" of the internet and e-commerce, then maybe there is hope for "World Domination" (for OSS) after all. -)
Which would give the White House all the excuse it needs to bring in the Army to break us up. A million-node Beowulf cluster would be the most powerful computer in existance. Given export restrictions on supercomputers (they're weapons, don't you know), the cluster would probably be considered equivalent to a fusion bomb...
Nah... they won't break it up.   They'll just declare it as being "government property" (since it would be sitting on gov't property and using gov't resources), and would put it under the control of the NSA.   Then they'll say "thanks" for donating your "surplus and excess" equipment to the fed gov't ("Here, fill out this form under penalty of law),and will send you home, pay some contractors to manage it, put a big tarpalene over the whole thing in lieu of a more permanent structure and would... [fill in the blank] with it.   Need I say more?
unding NASA for _real_ missions ( read: making mars a viable goal ) HELL NO!!! NASA needs to be disbanded or folded into the military. Take NASA's budget and apply it to tax cuts for private companies to do business in space. That is the only hope of seeing mankind in space on a consistent basis.
Funny that you mention this.   I read something from the AP this morning that said a bill was just signed into law to begin to "de-governmentize" the Intelsat (I believe - or one of the *sat) network - opening the way for privatization of satellites...
We need a million geek march on washington... although with all the technology most of us would bring, it would probably turn into a lan party. It would be fun nonetheless.
  And what, pray tell, would be wrong with a milion node lan party on the Washington mall?
Make it a million-node Beowulf cluster!   Right there on the mall!   YES!   That oughta get their attention...   By the way, there have been "Geek Pride" marches (or at least "Fests") I believe...
First - I *definitely* don't mean to attack those who work for IBM (and there's a few out there who have posted now) - that's your job and you know better about your company than I... so take no personal offense! -)
They then turn around and charge $X an hour per person on a team sent to go to another company to make Win2K work. Every time it breaks itself, that team or some part of it goes back and makes more money. Trust me, it works.
Again, take no personal offense at this but as someone who might work for a company that would be a customer of yours (or may purchase from your re-seller), would not I finally get wise to this practice?   That is, pouring money into a black hole?   Sure it might have worked for a couple of years but if I, Small to Medium-sized Business(tm) takes a look at my bottom line and finds that IT costs are cutting into it (and I have shareholders to answer to), what do you think I might do?   Some "smart" IT managers, when their budget suddenly gets cut, might opt for the "cheaper" solution - which wouldn't be your product, IMHO.   With Linux, maybe it would be competitive, but with Win2K it's not.   Everytime Win2K breaks, my TCO goes up and up and up and *I* have to explain to the CEO why I "exaggerated" (lied) about the combination IBM/Win2K having a so-called lower TCO (even though it's not IBM's fault) then X/Y brand.   THIS is the reality that IBM (and any other solutions provider) must deal with.   The days of sinking money into information technology *ARE OVER*. (trust me - my own place of employment is going through this now).
I (Small to Medium-sized Business(tm)) need a cheaper way to get the tech that I need.   Work me a deal!
Are you game? (this is all hypothetical, by the way - and this is what IBM needs to factor into any strategy that they might come up with)
...make strange bedfellows.   Often revolutions begin one person at a time.   With the power of the web - and a voice not churned through the journalistic feeding frenzy market machine (it slices, it dices, it turns out FUD and muddies the water), there is a chance to educate (and fire up) the public - who inturn will (hopefully) vote for folks who are in a geek's interest.
And granted, the apathy out there is pathetic, but if you put up a hot enough issue, you'd be surprised how the voting tides will turn for the geek...
But then again, aren't/.ers nerds? -)   Is there a difference?   Why am I here?
If you want some entrenched market share, look into IBM's RS/6000 Line and AIX. While some RS/6000 stuff may be considered legacy, go check out an S-80 or an SP, and lots of little companies use 43P-140 as servers for Point of Sale terminals.
I guess I have a different idea of what the relative "quantity" of "entrenched" is, ie., I'm looking at the traditional desktop and low to mid-tier server market - and this far outpaces the point of sale terminal market (and IBM sure ain't there to any great degree in the peecee/server arena).   If anything, Compaq is "entrenched", with servers and desktops alike - plus their purchase of DEC gave them even more, ie., all the legacy DEC terminals, VAX, and alpha boxes.
However...   if IBM looks at what companies like the Burlington Coat Factory has done, using Linux for point of sale, they could focus on selling point of sale devices (terminals) running Linux and make a killing.   To try to do too broad a market would be difficult.   Niche may be better for them right now as they reintroduce themselves back into the marketplace as a "player".   See... so much of their stuff has let us down in the immediate past - the microchannel architecture, OS/1, OS/2, blah (although the PS/2 technology was a hit).   And again, cost is a big factor.   They're probably betting on being able to lower the cost of a solution by eliminating the OS licensing fees (which makes sense and which is what Sun should be trying to do as well, IMHO).   However IBM has some work to do (marketing wise) to get back into the good graces...   And besides, they still make electric typewriters? (diversity = good)
IBM must have SOME entrenched markets left. The only tech job I see advertised as often as "Help Desk Technition" is "AS400 programmer" Must be thirty percent of the newspaper job adverts, and a similiar number of online adverts. Almost enough to make one wish he was an "AS400 programmer".
ROTFL.... Heeheeeheee... oh gee... you're so right.   That 'ole legacy stuff.   Although I also see alot more "C++/JAVA/COBOL/blah" too...
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, whatever. Asimov was a very proud and -very- loud atheist.
;-) Religion is what got civilization where it is today.   Now unfortunately it's irrelevant in that it's become entirely hypocritical...
He most certainly was!   In fact the short story I mention showed it with the ending - his wry irony was always amazing.
He viewed religion as an important part of historical human existence, but in the context of modern utility, religion is now unnecessary. Religion is now a complete waste of time...
What was that quote (more paraphrase - from maybe Arthur Clark???) - "Any sufficiently advanced technology appears magical" or something like that...
I am going to build or buy a Linux box and was wondering what Sound card is best supported in Linux? Preferably one that RedHat 6.1 will autodetect and configure for me.
;-)   Although I've discovered that most of the latest kernels shipping with the "Red Hats" (like Red Hat 6.x and Mandrake 6.x/7.x) are precompiled with sound modules enabled, so you might not have to do anything.   It's also preferable that you load your sound as modules anyway...
If you pick a Sound Blaster card (including the recent Sound Blaster Live!), then you'll be pretty safe and good to go.   I setup the basic version of RealServer 7 on Red Hat 6.1 and stuck in a cheapy Sound Blaster 16 ISA card (in an EISA slot) and RH's "sndconfig" utility found it right away.   This is in preparation for giving RealProducer 7 a shot.   I found that RealProducer doesn't seem to like ALSA drivers (prefers the OSS drivers), so if you have a Sound Blaster card, you probably won't have much of a prob.
Also, does anyone have any recommendations for what Video Card has the best combination of speed 2D/3D, OpenGL implementation, and open source drivers (though they don't have to absolutely be open source, it is a preference)
As for video cards, I'm not into that stuff but Matrox cards are supposedly very good and have decent Linux support.
I am mid-level user who can compile my own kernel and I have 4 or 5 Linux boxes, but none with high end video or sound. Thanks for any help, Fox
Kernel compiling is fun...
Anyway I was told to price solutions for producing audio and video content. Windows Media encoder and the server is free with IIS and RealProducts are EXPENSIVE.
I want the ease of WMP in WMP format on the stability of *nix/BSD. Oh and free too.
Real offers the free "basic version" of Realserver 7 for Red Hat and its clones.   Catch is that you're limited to 25 streams (and something else is missing, I think).   I have it running on Mandrake 6.5 and Red Hat 6.1 and although I haven't really put it through its paces, it's still a nice piece of work - and for free!   To do the live streams, you need RealProducer 7, which they also offer as a free basic version for Linux.   This product is unfortunately beta (or better, alpha) and needs a little work - but I'll putz around with it some more.
The one reason why I prefer Real's products is the fact that you have more granular management of bandwidth consumption - critical for dial-in users with slow modems, and I've seen some WMP stuff that is REALLY crap!   You also get a real nice web interface to configure and graphically monitor the server.
As an ISP, I expect that you'd obviously have far more than 25 simultaneous streams, but if you distribute 25-stream licenses across several cheap Linux boxes, you'd save yourself some bucks...   It would probably make sense to distribute this kind of stuff anyway.
does anyone know where i can find, online, a copy of asimov's story "The Thousand Names of God"
Unfortunately I don't but since you mention Asimov, he did write a short ditty called "The Last Question" (which also deals with the topic of religion and science) that so impacted me when I was a mere pre-teen, that I ended up reading the man's entire non-fiction works!   You'll notice that the most brilliant of scientists - particularly, physicists seem to have the most thought provoking ideas (and respect for, IMHO) about religion and science...
Yes... (other than me getting on Yahoo or Google or something to look for such links... hint hint), anyone having links to such, please post!
Mandrake and RedHat aren't known for feeling efficient. They feel more like windoze unless you cut down on the massive GUI crap they like to set up. The side-by-side comparison won't be fair unless you're running the same window manager, with the same mouse (this makes a lot of difference to feel, IMHO), and with a comparable video card.
;-) but in the case of my comparison, the 2 machines were virtually identical, hardware-wise, ie., both Compaq Presario 5000 models.   Both have the same on-board video (SiS 530 w/4MB) but my Mandrake is using an S3 Virge PCI card w/4MB that I added whereas the NetBSD box is using the onboard...   However, neither were running the X version of seti@home software (stuff was running in text mode - no window manager needed!) so except for how fast the console refreshes with either video, I'm not sure if that would impact it.
Since this thread dropped off the list (I'm writing this on Thurs.) not sure if you'll even see this response...
I know that the NetBSD kernel (especially after I recompiled it for my hardware, removing the unncecessary junk) is pretty streamlined as compared to my Mandrake's kernel (which I recompiled too, but there's so much other stuff there anyway), but it's been cool comparing the two regardless!
If you still find you like NetBSD more, then great, use it. As long as you use an OS which does what you want and you know how to use it, you've got my respect. (i.e. I'm not one of those annoying linux zealots.)
I could almost be considered a Linux zealot, but I'm very open-minded (and recognize that the *BSDs are what's really powering the 'net).   I consider this a learning experience towards getting into finding my way around a "commercial" UNIX.   It's been kinda fun.
but on any other hardware netBSD kicks butt.
On x86 it kicks butt too.   A (subjective) side by side comparison between my K6-2/500, 160MB RAM Linux Mandrake 6.5 box vs. my K6-2/450, 64MB RAM NetBSD 1.4.1 box, both running (at the time) the 1.x seti@home clients, was pretty dramatic, IMHO.   NetBSD was kickin'!   It just felt more efficient...   Which is why I went head with running 2 simultaneous processes of seti@home on it, and it ain't even breathin' hard!
the seti folks have ceased supporting the netbsd version of their software and have no plans to upgrade it to the 2.x version... :-(.
:-)   (I know... this is a shame... hee hee).
We'll see, but there's a chance that will be remedied.
Oh please please please hope this is true...   I'd be eternally happy!  
You could always run a binary from a different OS (but of the same architecture) with the emulation layer. Linux and FreeBSD clients come to mind..
;-)
That's the very first thing I tried (ie., running the i386 FreeBSD client).   My NetBSD didn't like that too much...  
The other process is at about 95% completed, so it'll try probably in the next half hour or 45 minutes.
;-)
Update - it uploaded it's completed work unit and downloaded another, so I'm still going on my NetBSD 1.x seti@home client!
What's the advantage of NetBSD over OpenBSD? The advantage of OpenBSD (of course) would seem to be security. Why would I choose NetBSD instead, since OpenBSD is based on it?
I had to go through the very same process...   If I were putting my box out on the network (not behind my firewall), then I would pick OpenBSD, hands down.   If I'm into applications, etc., and general all-around support, it would FreeBSD.   I picked NetBSD as a personal decision - it had the apps that I wanted, it is ported to almost everything, and as I posted previously, it purports to not release code before its time - sortof like Debian GNU/Linux, where your programmers are willing to spend that extra time to try to get it right.   Of course that means that releases come out later, but as a newbie, it's nice to get an install to go right the first time and not get frustrated!   I just liked their low keyed style, that's all.   No hype.
You need to decide what you want to do with your box - that will give you an idea of which one to pick.
I don't mean to be disrespectful or anything, but can anybody tell me a single reason why I should choose BSD over Linux or Windows?
I did it as a learning experience.   I felt that it was probably closer "in structure" to commercial Unix than Linux, and since I had little or no experience with Unix, I thought that it would make a nice transition from Linux -> *BSD -> Unix.
I've never once seen BSD software advertised or shrink-wrapped. Does that mean all software would have to be downloaded over the internet?
I believe that places like CheapBytes offer the usual $2 CDs.   I also believe that each of the *BSDs offer CDs from their sites as well.
Is it only good for hobbyists or ISPs, or am I missing something here?
Probably good for both but being a sysadmin (and supervisor of sysadmins) it's been a GREAT learning experience!   Admining NT teaches you nothing, IMHO, whereas admining one of the *nixes is truly fascinating and makes you think in a truly organized fashion!
Well, seeing as the Seti folks stopped allowing 1.x clients yesterday, you are in trouble now :(
Well... they said that it would happen on 3/6 and it didn't!   I'm looking at (switching between) both my NetBSD processes right now and one is at 6% completed (meaning it uploaded its work unit and downloaded a new one maybe in the past hour?).   The other process is at about 95% completed, so it'll try probably in the next half hour or 45 minutes.
Initially I thought their statement about not upgrading certain 1.xs meant that this would effectively kill them but then I began to get the impression that it may have meant not porting them to the newer 2.x version but still accepting the results.
Well... I'll let 'em keep going as long as they can... I just wish that seti's software team would allow some "outside" (and "seti-blessed") OSSers to port 2.x for NetBSD!
I have a single x86 NetBSD 1.4.1 box amongst my Linux boxen.   Once I got it installed and compiled me a new kernel (wow... how easy!), I haven't had much chance to get back to foolin' around with it.   Now's my chance.
:-(.
;-)
I have to say that when I was trying to determine which *BSD to try, it really boiled down to FreeBSD vs NetBSD.   Reason why I picked NetBSD was because of their low-key, no hype profile and a pledge to "release no code before its time".   It's just a nice, all around good system and I got 2 processes of seti@home running on it too, although the seti folks have ceased supporting the netbsd version of their software and have no plans to upgrade it to the 2.x version...  
What was good was that it came with instant support, no questions asked, for all of my hardware (including ESS Solo-1 sound chip) plus it had USB support before Linux did, by the way!  
Look forward to trying the upgrade!
Try reading the New York Times on Sunday morning. If it takes you less than three hours to get through it, I'll be amazed.
.pdf format that gives you the ability to add graphics if you want).
Try reading the New York Times *7* days a week for the past 25 years and see how the content has gone to crap too...   When we have to use something like the NY Times or Washington Post as an example of "upper echelon" and what's right with a newspaper, then we truly are in sad times.
It's unfortunate that something like the NY Times and the now rag sheet Wall Street Journal (which over the past 10 years has focussed more on "expose-style" and so-called "investigative reporting-style writing", ala, the National Enquirer) have degraded down to nothing.   "Articles" are no longer "reporting the news" or "reporting the facts" but are actually "editorializing" the story, giving opinions and impressions (in a NEWS column - not the editorial page) rather than fact, with little data to back up the statements.   Much of the so-called content becomes a contest as to who can include the most descriptive adjectives and adverbs to fill column inches.   Sadly, alot of what you read across the country is regurgitated news from one paper to the next (and as an extensive traveller, I have read quite a number of local newspapers from across the country).
You would be surprised that some of the best reading comes from local neighborhood or small town papers when compared to the "national" ones.   Add to this papers like USA Today (believe it or not), which has so much to report (since they truly are "national") that they don't have chance or enough space to fill the column with useless drivel.
The trend towards "e-ing" everything (and to those posters who are sick of "e", count me as one who is too), can be useful in that you can often "customize" your content (remember the big selling point by some ICPs regarding how you could customize your own electronic newspaper?).   Regarding electronic books - having the web gives you a much broader distribution media (I *refuse* to call it "e-distribution") in that you are given the choice to read a variety of materials that authors might post that would most likely never be published by the established book publishers.   In essence, it takes the alt.*.creative news groups (which I have posted stories to) to another level (particularly with the
Anyway, no flame intended, it's just that the NY Times has lost it's luster...
Is anyone out there actively lobbying the government to officially endorse OSS solutions rather than proprietary software? It seems to me as a taxpayer that I would like to see the vast number of government projects out there actively evaluate Linux as well as Solaris and NT as platforms.
Alot of us are trying, believe me.   Most of us have OSS snuck in the background but contributing none the less...   The more "public" uses are seen at NASA with their Beowulf cluster and at NIST.
There's a FOSE conference coming up next month and one of the seminar tracks includes a session on Linux.   However I wish that more on OSS was scheduled to be discussed at this.   The timing of FOSE is really good considering all that's going on right now, but seems no one in the D.C./MD/VA area appeared to push it for this year's conference...
By PoS, I assume you mean a thin client running Linux, like this?
;-)
/.ed that website of the guy who hacked the $99 ($299 in some locations) flat screen i-opener.
Wow...   That's a nice looking unit.   Grovel grovel... I want one.
But I know I probably couldn't afford it...  
You know, the whole thin client/Net PC thing may really take off when/if flat screen monitors (like the IBM model in your link) come down in price.   That's why folks
Slashdot must be one of the more frequently tested sites with Mozilla.
;-)
And if you get the "Aphrodite" skin, you'll get slashdot as one of the default sites on your personal task bar...
Global Services isn't paid to push IBM products, they are paid to give the customer what the customer asks for. Sometimes you get what you ask for if you already "know" what is best for you. If you ask for advice, they will plug IBM, of course, but let you do your own research and help you whatever you decide. Their goal is to make money by helping you and making you want to call them back the next time you need help.
;-).   I could never do it and respect the fact that you can!   In fact, I kinda feel sorry for you 'cause I know your job must be tough - dealing with clients who don't have a clue (and you have to pull teeth to figure out exactly what they want), but either way, you'd still make $$$ off 'em.
;-)
And here is where the IT department needs to really do some research and not just follow the Pied Piper of Redmond.   What often happens is laziness, relying on you (the provider) to make the decision, and then when things go sour, they drop you.   I guess that's the risk you take for being a provider...
If your unit can push OSS as a viable solution, and not just Linux by the way - the (free as in beer) *BSDs are currently the "backbone" of the internet and e-commerce, then maybe there is hope for "World Domination" (for OSS) after all.  
Which would give the White House all the excuse it needs to bring in the Army to break us up. A million-node Beowulf cluster would be the most powerful computer in existance. Given export restrictions on supercomputers (they're weapons, don't you know), the cluster would probably be considered equivalent to a fusion bomb...
;-)
Nah... they won't break it up.   They'll just declare it as being "government property" (since it would be sitting on gov't property and using gov't resources), and would put it under the control of the NSA.   Then they'll say "thanks" for donating your "surplus and excess" equipment to the fed gov't ("Here, fill out this form under penalty of law),and will send you home, pay some contractors to manage it, put a big tarpalene over the whole thing in lieu of a more permanent structure and would... [fill in the blank] with it.   Need I say more?
unding NASA for _real_ missions ( read: making mars a viable goal ) HELL NO!!! NASA needs to be disbanded or folded into the military. Take NASA's budget and apply it to tax cuts for private companies to do business in space. That is the only hope of seeing mankind in space on a consistent basis.
Funny that you mention this.   I read something from the AP this morning that said a bill was just signed into law to begin to "de-governmentize" the Intelsat (I believe - or one of the *sat) network - opening the way for privatization of satellites...
A move in the right direction, IMHO.
We need a million geek march on washington... although with all the technology most of us would bring, it would probably turn into a lan party. It would be fun nonetheless.
;-)
  And what, pray tell, would be wrong with a milion node lan party on the Washington mall?
Make it a million-node Beowulf cluster!   Right there on the mall!   YES!   That oughta get their attention...   By the way, there have been "Geek Pride" marches (or at least "Fests") I believe...
-------NOTE: NOT FLAMEBAIT!!!!!!
First - I *definitely* don't mean to attack those who work for IBM (and there's a few out there who have posted now) - that's your job and you know better about your company than I... so take no personal offense!  
They then turn around and charge $X an hour per person on a team sent to go to another company to make Win2K work. Every time it breaks itself, that team or some part of it goes back and makes more money. Trust me, it works.
Again, take no personal offense at this but as someone who might work for a company that would be a customer of yours (or may purchase from your re-seller), would not I finally get wise to this practice?   That is, pouring money into a black hole?   Sure it might have worked for a couple of years but if I, Small to Medium-sized Business(tm) takes a look at my bottom line and finds that IT costs are cutting into it (and I have shareholders to answer to), what do you think I might do?   Some "smart" IT managers, when their budget suddenly gets cut, might opt for the "cheaper" solution - which wouldn't be your product, IMHO.   With Linux, maybe it would be competitive, but with Win2K it's not.   Everytime Win2K breaks, my TCO goes up and up and up and *I* have to explain to the CEO why I "exaggerated" (lied) about the combination IBM/Win2K having a so-called lower TCO (even though it's not IBM's fault) then X/Y brand.   THIS is the reality that IBM (and any other solutions provider) must deal with.   The days of sinking money into information technology *ARE OVER*. (trust me - my own place of employment is going through this now).
I (Small to Medium-sized Business(tm)) need a cheaper way to get the tech that I need.   Work me a deal!
Are you game? (this is all hypothetical, by the way - and this is what IBM needs to factor into any strategy that they might come up with)
...make strange bedfellows.   Often revolutions begin one person at a time.   With the power of the web - and a voice not churned through the journalistic feeding frenzy market machine (it slices, it dices, it turns out FUD and muddies the water), there is a chance to educate (and fire up) the public - who inturn will (hopefully) vote for folks who are in a geek's interest.
/.ers nerds?   ;-)   Is there a difference?   Why am I here?
And granted, the apathy out there is pathetic, but if you put up a hot enough issue, you'd be surprised how the voting tides will turn for the geek...
But then again, aren't
If you want some entrenched market share, look into IBM's RS/6000 Line and AIX. While some RS/6000 stuff may be considered legacy, go check out an S-80 or an SP, and lots of little companies use 43P-140 as servers for Point of Sale terminals.
;-)
I guess I have a different idea of what the relative "quantity" of "entrenched" is, ie., I'm looking at the traditional desktop and low to mid-tier server market - and this far outpaces the point of sale terminal market (and IBM sure ain't there to any great degree in the peecee/server arena).   If anything, Compaq is "entrenched", with servers and desktops alike - plus their purchase of DEC gave them even more, ie., all the legacy DEC terminals, VAX, and alpha boxes.
However...   if IBM looks at what companies like the Burlington Coat Factory has done, using Linux for point of sale, they could focus on selling point of sale devices (terminals) running Linux and make a killing.   To try to do too broad a market would be difficult.   Niche may be better for them right now as they reintroduce themselves back into the marketplace as a "player".   See... so much of their stuff has let us down in the immediate past - the microchannel architecture, OS/1, OS/2, blah (although the PS/2 technology was a hit).   And again, cost is a big factor.   They're probably betting on being able to lower the cost of a solution by eliminating the OS licensing fees (which makes sense and which is what Sun should be trying to do as well, IMHO).   However IBM has some work to do (marketing wise) to get back into the good graces...   And besides, they still make electric typewriters? (diversity = good)
IBM must have SOME entrenched markets left. The only tech job I see advertised as often as "Help Desk Technition" is "AS400 programmer" Must be thirty percent of the newspaper job adverts, and a similiar number of online adverts. Almost enough to make one wish he was an "AS400 programmer".
;-)
ROTFL.... Heeheeeheee... oh gee... you're so right.   That 'ole legacy stuff.   Although I also see alot more "C++/JAVA/COBOL/blah" too...