Basically, that is all any employer hires anybody _for_, to get something done that they find too time-consuming and/or mundane. BillG hires software engineers because the project has become too big for him to handle by himself - he'd love to, because then he'd get to keep ALL the money, but he can't.
The only way to get something more interesting to do is to do the stuff you're assigned, and then look for something more interesting, and do that, too. If you get noticed doing things beyond the requirements, particularly if they're difficult, you might get promoted or a raise. Your employer DOES NOT CARE what you do and do not find "interesting" or "exciting".
The idea of an electronic book is really great, especially when their storage capacity gets to where you can keep a carful of books in something the size of a thin looseleaf binder.
Unfortunately, the people who are building the books are:
1) Book publishers, who really _hate_ the idea of secondhand bookstores, libraries, yard sales, etc. They're as evil as the record companies and the movie industry and they want you to pay for each and every time you read their intellectual property. Nevermind selling it to another after you're through with it, either, that's gonna be a no-no.
2) (Commercial) software developers who don't see anything wrong with anything in part 1).
Now, if RMS were designing the software in the softbooks & the eBooks, I would be wholeheartedly in support of them, but he's not.
And I won't even go near the possibilities for revisionism. Another poster was dead on when he said that the scariest thing about 1984 was _NOT_ the monitor cameras everywhere, but rather Winslow Smith's job responsibilities!
But one of the central principles of private property is that, once you have purchased a given piece of property it is then _YOURS_, to use, misuse, and abuse as you see fit, and if you break the law with it the responsibility is _YOURS_, not the manufacturer's. Holding IBM responsible for 3rd party modifications to their registered modem program is as ludicrous as holding the automobile manufacturers responsible for robberies committed with their vehicles.
You need firmware to make this chip more than a lump of glass, and the application that you bought with it is only one of the possible tricks that can be loaded into it. If you want to roll your own applications for _YOUR_ hardware, the source for the application that you bought with it is an important educational example. Is the modem DSP algorithm patented, trade secret, otherwise inhibited, or what? If they don't give you the SOURCE CODE then it's not Open Source. They should certainly be able to disclose this without compromising their FCC registration, the registration is a standard-compliance/noninterference/safety assurance. A smart DSP manufacturer would put product datasheets, programming tools, and all the source code he can out in the public domain in the hopes that his example application code will A) sell some chips to run that application on and B) help haXors come up with new applications (like sonar) for his chip and thereby sell a couple more.
If you muck with the modem DSP code and come up with a modem that goes 100KBits/sec, this is probably outside the federal regulations, but you are the responsible criminal and NOT IBM, _their_ firmware was certified to comply with the regs and the minute you modified it you broke that certification and you no longer have any license to even connect it to the POTS. You now have a _really_ cheap sonar development system. Of course you can, in a second, reload IBM's registered firmware and then plug it back into the phone.....
Such are the wonders of Open Source.
And THANK YOU, IBM, for at least giving us the loader, and the binaries for the modem application, so we can at least make our laptops' built-in modems do what they're _supposed_ to do!
But you _could_, if you wanted to, and for NO INVESTMENT ON YOUR PART, get into the cheap sonar (and, no doubt, a buncha other things, too!) development system market at the bottom floor!
By nesting the messages too deep?
Somehow I doubt it.
My bet is that Cowboy Neal and Roblimo are reading this and laughing their asses off and wondering how long you'll keep this going before you get bored with it.
NetScrape, now, you'll probably break _that_....
...given that AMD has only been performing on par with Intel for a year now... is this long enough?
That is just plain incorrect.
AMD has tracked _every_ major device made by Intel for over 25 years. Back in the Plestocine era (1973-1975), Intel & AMD made a technology exchange agreement, wherin AMD got the masks to the 6104 (4Kbit DRAM) and Intel got the masks to the 2704 (4KBit EPROM)(I'm guessing here, anybody with better data is welcome to supply it). Later this deal grew to include the 8080/82xx uP/peripheral family and by the time the 8085 & 8086 came out they were solid partners in competition against Zilog and their Z80. You see, in those days, they had a thing called "second-sourcing", which meant that if you wanted to sell your microelectronic-based devices to the military, you had to establish at least two parts suppliers, so the DoD wouldn't be invested into a proprietary (or outright unavailable) part. The 8086 technology partnership was supposed to be "for the lifetime of the iAPX86 product family", which Intel decided ended with the 386. Since the 486, AMD has been forced to reverse-engineer Intel's CPUs, and has been generally drop-in compatible with Intel, except for occasional issues. Look at AMD & Intel's OEM price lists. THEY MAKE THE SAME CHIPS! (Many of which, like the 8051, you've never heard of.) Except that AMD usually has smaller dice and better yields, which translates to faster and cheaper parts. I guess AMD has drawn the line at licensing Intel's proprietary socket, and now they're no longer drop-in compatible. Intel has from time to time done other things to break AMD compatibility, but they catch up, and AMD usually offers comparable or better parts for less, both because they _have_to_, and because they don't spend millions of bucks for TV commercials with people dancing around in tinted bunny suits. That's what jars me the MOST: the unwashed masses now _know_ that Intel makes superior parts, because they've seen silly blue men advertize the PIII on TV, but they've never heard of that AMD outfit.
To build a High-Availability system, I would:
AVOID the bleeding-edge technology. It COSTS TOO MUCH, and has compatability and reliability issues. Anybody in chip manufacture can tell you that it takes a year to _really_ get a new chip really rolling off a line. Then they come out cheap.
Use AMD for a more reliable CPU, assuming that other factors (such as motherboard chipsets) are equal, which I gather from the discussion they may not be.
Spread the load out among a bunch of cheap machines if possible, rather than build a single expensive world-killer and single point of failure. If the job can't be spread among several machines, forget the x86, you need (or will need in the future) a bigger gun.
Think about this statement: "The Intel Pentium III processor will make the Internet COME ALIVE!!!" Now that's a blatent lie. I hope I'm addressing an audience that's well enough informed to know that _yer_connection_speed_ has one whole lot more to do with the quality of your Internet experience than your CPU speed.
Please guys, leave the engineering to the engineers, and quit wasting money on Intel, even if they _do_ have pretty graphics.
and I think that was the Sinclair's situation as well.
I remember having to add RS-232 buffers to the C64's otherwise perfectly good serial port, and (with the exception of Radio Shack) many of the others failed to provide a usable serial port.
My production Timex model got warm, but not too badly.
would only be because you were overclocking the piss out of it. At stock clock speeds the machine didn't have a cooling problem.
By 1985, Z80 family machinery achieved, I believe, something like 12 or 16 MHz. It may go faster now.
If you took all the silicon (memory chips, maybe a logic gate or array) out of the board and replaced them with modern production, you could crank it a LOT faster than standard. Fast Z80s kept up with 8088s. Linux will fit on neither.
The answer goes something like: "Then give us the fscking SOURCE and let us play with porting it _ourselves_!"
IBM wants to make a lot of noise about Linux and supporting Linux : they (and those other guys out there distributing binaries and hurraying that they support Linux) need to understand that the ground rules here are OPEN SOURCE. If you can't give us the SOURCE, do not expect us to take you seriously, you're just another guy trying to rent us (a limited selection of) bits.
Re:To the 0wn3rz go the ComSats
on
R.I.P. Iridium
·
· Score: 1
The characters in the first column were to provide "carriage control" information to early printers. FORTRAN was real big on these. I always thought this was amusing, as these machines had no actual carriage. Paper feed control would have been more precise, as they controlled things like double spacing lines of output, and overstriking.
From the sound of the situation you describe, the embedded market is *ripe* for a PORTABLE, OPEN SOURCE environment, complete with scalable kernel adaptable to "real-time" scheduling, runtime libraries, and development tools.
There are thousands of penny-ante guys (like, for instance, myself) who would be in business making short-run embedded equipment if the entry fees were NOT SO HIGH. Linux ports will lower this wall, enabling a plethora of new developers to write code for and *buy* stuff like yer 8240 without having to shell out a raft of money for tools.
Is it *that* tough to port gcc to another machine?
I personally have trouble getting behind the idea of writing software for the Micro$oft platform, just as I would have trouble getting behind the idea of seeking adoption into a family which has proven its ability to eat its young!
Well, the first of these is the truth of the situation already, and that's why the USPS has no objection to carrying unwanted advertising: they make their money on it.
The second... you won't get any help from your mailman on this, as the thing that makes it easy, convenient, and *profitable* is that he gets six bundles of B.S.and gives one of each out to everybody, no thought, little effort. It's nowhere near as easy to have to worry about who _doesn't_ get this and who _does_ want that....
I'll admit it's morally indefensible - all that pretty 4-color, just going straight into the landfill, totally unread!
I find it shocking to see how many PEOPLE (particularly from AOHell) are stopped *cold* by "mikie.nospam@penguinpowered.com"! I explain in my sig. what I'm up to, and yet retired IBM programmers cannot reply to me, never mind my mom.
And I jussst can't say about the 'bots. You'd think their programmers would be wise to this by *now*, but they aren't.
OF *ANY* KIND _INCLUDING_, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ALL LIABILITIES FOR CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY NATURE ARISING FROM THE USE, MISUSE, OR ABUSE OF THIS "SOFTWARE" ARE SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED!!!
How often have you seen this, or some closely related, disclaimer?
As long as "the software industry" insists on such nonsense, and refuses to take itself seriously enough to warrant thair "products" to do more than melt down yer CPU, you may as well forget about the concept of responsibility in OS, or *any* "software", design!!!
Again, would you buy a car, or anything else, for that matter, with such an explicit non-warranty?
With the total domination of M$ on the desktop,CAD software is fleeing its traditional *NIX platforms for NT!
AutoCAD used to be available (up to about version 13) for *NIX. No mas.
Bently MicroStation used to be ported to about 5 *NIXs. Bently has totally abandoned the *NIX platform and is now *only* developing for NT. They're adamant about it "just not being worth" the "massive effort" to port to Linux. I've been back and forth with their marketeers about this, and haven't been able to explain to the idiots what a make file is. Maybe they've fired ALL their *NIX guys.....
I suspect Bully Boy must be involved in this at some level. Inquires to developers about porting their stuff to Linux are met by the same spew of FUD every time about how Winbloze is the only platform they'll support because they'd have to multiply their entire development effort by n to support every environment out there if they triedto cover more than Winbloze and that would break them. This is seen as a company-breaking expense!
So I've pretty much given up hope of seeing manymore ports to Linux. Everything *I've* been interested in seems to be going the other way.
And yes, NT on the desktop is *definately* a threat to *NIX in the R&D world.
another $1000 for software development tools, SCO could be a *very* big deal today. If they had sold it for $100 or even $200 they would have sold *many* more licenses, made much more money, and maybe even kept up with the rest of the *nix world's progress over the last 15 years. If they hadn't put up that major entry barrier, SCO (with X) could have given M$ a run for the PC market. But wait - SCO *IS* (*was*?) M$!!
"I remember now - THAT was the equation!" -- Brock, stardate whatever (What Are Little Girls Made Of)
SCO never existed except to kill the PC unix market. Its end is at hand. Is it any surprise to see the CEO in hysterics? Is it any surprise to hear the CEO FUD the system which has made it impossible to keep the lid on PC *nix any longer?
Go on, Mr. Michaels. Tell us what's so great about your product. Tell us one thing it can do better than Linux, FreeBSD, or, for that matter, SolarisX86! Tell us *why* we should buy your overpriced trash. Don't just call us kooks, anybody can do *that*!
and they're all the same, you sure could save a hell of a lotta money by buying AMD-based workstations, developing a disk image that works on that particular hardware configuration, and copying it across 'em all, just as you would have to do with an intel-based workstation!
As for intel (or their MB chipsets) being *standardized*, I'd defy you to buy 100 workstations from *anybody*, set 'em up, and then, 2 weeks later, try to *find* 100 more IDENTICAL motherboards. Sorry, the market is just moving too fast for that!
I guess if you're willing to buy from Compaq, (which I'm *not*), you might be able to get identical systems for about six months, then next year's models will be totally incompatible, just throw last year's away....
and they're all the same, you sure could save a hell of a lotta money by buying AMD-based workstations, developing a disk image that works on that particular hardware configuration, and copying it across 'em all, just as you would have to do with an intel-based workstation!
As for intel (or their MB chipsets) being *standardized*, I'd defy you to buy 100 workstations from *anybody*, set 'em up, and then, 2 weeks later, try to *find* 100 more IDENTICAL motherboards. Sorry, the market is just moving too fast for that!
I guess if you're willing to buy from Compaq, (which I'm *not*), you might be able to get identical systems for about six months, then next year's models will be totally incompatible, just throw last year's away....
Slashdot Mirror
And welcome to the working week.
Basically, that is all any employer hires anybody _for_, to get something done that they find too time-consuming and/or mundane. BillG hires software engineers because the project has become too big for him to handle by himself - he'd love to, because then he'd get to keep ALL the money, but he can't.
The only way to get something more interesting to do is to do the stuff you're assigned, and then look for something more interesting, and do that, too. If you get noticed doing things beyond the requirements, particularly if they're difficult, you might get promoted or a raise. Your employer DOES NOT CARE what you do and do not find "interesting" or "exciting".
The idea of an electronic book is really great, especially when their storage capacity gets to where you can keep a carful of books in something the size of a thin looseleaf binder.
Unfortunately, the people who are building the books are:
1) Book publishers, who really _hate_ the idea of secondhand bookstores, libraries, yard sales, etc. They're as evil as the record companies and the movie industry and they want you to pay for each and every time you read their intellectual property. Nevermind selling it to another after you're through with it, either, that's gonna be a no-no.
2) (Commercial) software developers who don't see anything wrong with anything in part 1).
Now, if RMS were designing the software in the softbooks & the eBooks, I would be wholeheartedly in support of them, but he's not.
And I won't even go near the possibilities for revisionism. Another poster was dead on when he said that the scariest thing about 1984 was _NOT_ the monitor cameras everywhere, but rather Winslow Smith's job responsibilities!
Yeah, OK.
But one of the central principles of private property is that, once you have purchased a given piece of property it is then _YOURS_, to use, misuse, and abuse as you see fit, and if you break the law with it the responsibility is _YOURS_, not the manufacturer's. Holding IBM responsible for 3rd party modifications to their registered modem program is as ludicrous as holding the automobile manufacturers responsible for robberies committed with their vehicles.
You need firmware to make this chip more than a lump of glass, and the application that you bought with it is only one of the possible tricks that can be loaded into it. If you want to roll your own applications for _YOUR_ hardware, the source for the application that you bought with it is an important educational example. Is the modem DSP algorithm patented, trade secret, otherwise inhibited, or what? If they don't give you the SOURCE CODE then it's not Open Source. They should certainly be able to disclose this without compromising their FCC registration, the registration is a standard-compliance/noninterference/safety assurance. A smart DSP manufacturer would put product datasheets, programming tools, and all the source code he can out in the public domain in the hopes that his example application code will A) sell some chips to run that application on and B) help haXors come up with new applications (like sonar) for his chip and thereby sell a couple more.
If you muck with the modem DSP code and come up with a modem that goes 100KBits/sec, this is probably outside the federal regulations, but you are the responsible criminal and NOT IBM, _their_ firmware was certified to comply with the regs and the minute you modified it you broke that certification and you no longer have any license to even connect it to the POTS. You now have a _really_ cheap sonar development system. Of course you can, in a second, reload IBM's registered firmware and then plug it back into the phone.....
Such are the wonders of Open Source.
And THANK YOU, IBM, for at least giving us the loader, and the binaries for the modem application, so we can at least make our laptops' built-in modems do what they're _supposed_ to do!
But you _could_, if you wanted to, and for NO INVESTMENT ON YOUR PART, get into the cheap sonar (and, no doubt, a buncha other things, too!) development system market at the bottom floor!
and you lose indications of which messages are replies to which.
This is admittedly better than indenting out the right side of the window....
By nesting the messages too deep?
Somehow I doubt it.
My bet is that Cowboy Neal and Roblimo are reading this and laughing their asses off and wondering how long you'll keep this going before you get bored with it.
NetScrape, now, you'll probably break _that_....
Yeah, sure. I saw 'em in Vegas. They're hilarious. WTF do they know about computer hardware?
...given that AMD has only been performing on par with Intel for a year now... is this long enough?
That is just plain incorrect.
AMD has tracked _every_ major device made by Intel for over 25 years. Back in the Plestocine era (1973-1975), Intel & AMD made a technology exchange agreement, wherin AMD got the masks to the 6104 (4Kbit DRAM) and Intel got the masks to the 2704 (4KBit EPROM)(I'm guessing here, anybody with better data is welcome to supply it). Later this deal grew to include the 8080/82xx uP/peripheral family and by the time the 8085 & 8086 came out they were solid partners in competition against Zilog and their Z80. You see, in those days, they had a thing called "second-sourcing", which meant that if you wanted to sell your microelectronic-based devices to the military, you had to establish at least two parts suppliers, so the DoD wouldn't be invested into a proprietary (or outright unavailable) part. The 8086 technology partnership was supposed to be "for the lifetime of the iAPX86 product family", which Intel decided ended with the 386. Since the 486, AMD has been forced to reverse-engineer Intel's CPUs, and has been generally drop-in compatible with Intel, except for occasional issues. Look at AMD & Intel's OEM price lists. THEY MAKE THE SAME CHIPS! (Many of which, like the 8051, you've never heard of.) Except that AMD usually has smaller dice and better yields, which translates to faster and cheaper parts. I guess AMD has drawn the line at licensing Intel's proprietary socket, and now they're no longer drop-in compatible. Intel has from time to time done other things to break AMD compatibility, but they catch up, and AMD usually offers comparable or better parts for less, both because they _have_to_, and because they don't spend millions of bucks for TV commercials with people dancing around in tinted bunny suits. That's what jars me the MOST: the unwashed masses now _know_ that Intel makes superior parts, because they've seen silly blue men advertize the PIII on TV, but they've never heard of that AMD outfit.
To build a High-Availability system, I would:
AVOID the bleeding-edge technology. It COSTS TOO MUCH, and has compatability and reliability issues. Anybody in chip manufacture can tell you that it takes a year to _really_ get a new chip really rolling off a line. Then they come out cheap.
Use AMD for a more reliable CPU, assuming that other factors (such as motherboard chipsets) are equal, which I gather from the discussion they may not be.
Spread the load out among a bunch of cheap machines if possible, rather than build a single expensive world-killer and single point of failure. If the job can't be spread among several machines, forget the x86, you need (or will need in the future) a bigger gun.
Think about this statement: "The Intel Pentium III processor will make the Internet COME ALIVE!!!" Now that's a blatent lie. I hope I'm addressing an audience that's well enough informed to know that _yer_connection_speed_ has one whole lot more to do with the quality of your Internet experience than your CPU speed.
Please guys, leave the engineering to the engineers, and quit wasting money on Intel, even if they _do_ have pretty graphics.
and I think that was the Sinclair's situation as well.
I remember having to add RS-232 buffers to the C64's otherwise perfectly good serial port, and (with the exception of Radio Shack) many of the others failed to provide a usable serial port.
My production Timex model got warm, but not too badly.
would only be because you were overclocking the piss out of it. At stock clock speeds the machine didn't have a cooling problem.
By 1985, Z80 family machinery achieved, I believe, something like 12 or 16 MHz. It may go faster now.
If you took all the silicon (memory chips, maybe a logic gate or array) out of the board and replaced them with modern production, you could crank it a LOT faster than standard. Fast Z80s kept up with 8088s. Linux will fit on neither.
I can't sit still for this, anymore.
The answer goes something like: "Then give us the fscking SOURCE and let us play with porting it _ourselves_!"
IBM wants to make a lot of noise about Linux and supporting Linux : they (and those other guys out there distributing binaries and hurraying that they support Linux) need to understand that the ground rules here are OPEN SOURCE. If you can't give us the SOURCE, do not expect us to take you seriously, you're just another guy trying to rent us (a limited selection of) bits.
The characters in the first column were to provide "carriage control" information to early printers. FORTRAN was real big on these. I always thought this was amusing, as these machines had no actual carriage. Paper feed control would have been more precise, as they controlled things like double spacing lines of output, and overstriking.
From the sound of the situation you describe, the embedded market is *ripe* for a PORTABLE, OPEN SOURCE environment, complete with scalable kernel adaptable to "real-time" scheduling, runtime libraries, and development tools.
There are thousands of penny-ante guys (like, for instance, myself) who would be in business making short-run embedded equipment if the entry fees were NOT SO HIGH. Linux ports will lower this wall, enabling a plethora of new developers to write code for and *buy* stuff like yer 8240 without having to shell out a raft of money for tools.
Is it *that* tough to port gcc to another machine?
I personally have trouble getting behind the idea
of writing software for the Micro$oft platform,
just as I would have trouble getting behind the
idea of seeking adoption into a family which has
proven its ability to eat its young!
Well, the first of these is the truth of the situation already, and that's why the USPS has no objection to carrying unwanted advertising: they make their money on it.
The second... you won't get any help from your mailman on this, as the thing that makes it easy, convenient, and *profitable* is that he gets six bundles of B.S.and gives one of each out to everybody, no thought, little effort. It's nowhere near as easy to have to worry about who _doesn't_ get this and who _does_ want that....
I'll admit it's morally indefensible - all that pretty 4-color, just going straight into the landfill, totally unread!
PLEASE, RECYCLE!
I find it shocking to see how many PEOPLE
(particularly from AOHell) are stopped *cold*
by "mikie.nospam@penguinpowered.com"! I explain
in my sig. what I'm up to, and yet retired IBM
programmers cannot reply to me, never mind my mom.
And I jussst can't say about the 'bots. You'd
think their programmers would be wise to this by
*now*, but they aren't.
http://www.cet.middlebury.edu/herren/pages/satan.h tml
OF *ANY* KIND _INCLUDING_, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ALL LIABILITIES FOR CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY NATURE ARISING FROM THE USE, MISUSE, OR ABUSE OF THIS "SOFTWARE" ARE SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED!!!
How often have you seen this, or some closely related, disclaimer?
As long as "the software industry" insists on such nonsense, and refuses to take itself seriously enough to warrant thair "products" to do more than melt down yer CPU, you may as well forget about the concept of responsibility in OS, or *any* "software", design!!!
Again, would you buy a car, or anything else, for that matter, with such an explicit non-warranty?
IdIoTs who are the problem. Any savvy user (such
as, say, yourself) will just go get a real ISP.
With the total domination of M$ on the desktop,CAD software is fleeing its traditional *NIX platforms for NT!
AutoCAD used to be available (up to about version 13) for *NIX. No mas.
Bently MicroStation used to be ported to about 5 *NIXs. Bently has totally abandoned the *NIX platform and is now *only* developing for NT. They're adamant about it "just not being worth" the "massive effort" to port to Linux. I've been back and forth with their marketeers about this, and haven't been able to explain to the idiots what a make file is. Maybe they've fired ALL their *NIX guys.....
I suspect Bully Boy must be involved in this at some level. Inquires to developers about porting their stuff to Linux are met by the same spew of FUD every time about how Winbloze is the only platform they'll support because they'd have to multiply their entire development effort by n to support every environment out there if they triedto cover more than Winbloze and that would break them. This is seen as a company-breaking expense!
So I've pretty much given up hope of seeing manymore ports to Linux. Everything *I've* been interested in seems to be going the other way.
And yes, NT on the desktop is *definately* a threat to *NIX in the R&D world.
what the M$(tm)(R)(C) monopoly will cost if it is
allowed to survive.
And can you *really* see developers forking out to
support 3 different flavors of Winbloze(tm)(r)(C)
if the APIs are at all dissimilar?
Hell, many companies that used to support UNIX are
bailing off it in favor of NT(tm)(R)(C), because
just 2 APIs are "too expensive to maintian".
another $1000 for software development tools, SCO could be a *very* big deal today.
If they had sold it for $100 or even $200 they would have sold *many* more licenses, made much more money, and maybe even kept up with the rest of the *nix world's progress over the last 15 years.
If they hadn't put up that major entry barrier, SCO (with X) could have given M$ a run for the PC market.
But wait - SCO *IS* (*was*?) M$!!
"I remember now - THAT was the equation!"
-- Brock, stardate whatever
(What Are Little Girls Made Of)
SCO never existed except to kill the PC unix market. Its end is at hand.
Is it any surprise to see the CEO in hysterics?
Is it any surprise to hear the CEO FUD the system which has made it impossible to keep the lid on PC *nix any longer?
Go on, Mr. Michaels. Tell us what's so great about your product. Tell us one thing it can do better than Linux, FreeBSD, or, for that matter, SolarisX86!
Tell us *why* we should buy your overpriced trash.
Don't just call us kooks, anybody can do *that*!
and they're all the same, you sure could save a hell of a lotta money by buying AMD-based workstations, developing a disk image that works on that particular hardware configuration, and copying it across 'em all, just as you would have to do with an intel-based workstation!
As for intel (or their MB chipsets) being *standardized*, I'd defy you to buy 100 workstations from *anybody*, set 'em up, and then, 2 weeks later, try to *find* 100 more IDENTICAL motherboards. Sorry, the market is just moving too fast for that!
I guess if you're willing to buy from Compaq, (which I'm *not*), you might be able to get identical systems for about six months, then next year's models will be totally incompatible, just throw last year's away....
Mikie
and they're all the same, you sure could save a hell of a lotta money by buying AMD-based workstations, developing a disk image that works on that particular hardware configuration, and copying it across 'em all, just as you would have to do with an intel-based workstation!
As for intel (or their MB chipsets) being *standardized*, I'd defy you to buy 100 workstations from *anybody*, set 'em up, and then, 2 weeks later, try to *find* 100 more IDENTICAL motherboards. Sorry, the market is just moving too fast for that!
I guess if you're willing to buy from Compaq, (which I'm *not*), you might be able to get identical systems for about six months, then next year's models will be totally incompatible, just throw last year's away....
Mikie
as if anybody with half a clue uses NT in an enterprise!
NT at 38% server market? Only M$ claims that.
Maybe it's me, but my recollection was that NT
& Linux were neck & neck at around 25% with Linux
growing faster.
Anybody with better numbers, or a source of where
you got 'em, is invited to throw them in.