Less than a year ago the columists at Linux Journal answered a question about NFS on Linux (I think it was someone with an IRIX system he was trying to connect to a Linux box) by recommending SAMBA instead.
Yes, that's right. A reverse engineered Microsoft 'protocol' was recommended over NFS, because it's implemented better under Linux.
NFS may have improved in the meantime. One would certainly hope it has.
That's why I run NetBSD on my Sparc hardware, as well as all of my i386 freenix hardware and all of my 68K Mac hardware. Because I want a standard system around all the platforms I have.
I'd have to run different 'distributions' of Linux on all of them.
It's trivial to 'bait' somebody like Stallman, it happens all the time at almost any public event he attends. All they'd have to go is get him going about how Linux should be named Lignux, or challange his assumptions in some way.
Stallman is easily distracted, because he's an ideologue, and used to preaching to a choir. You could dress him up in a conservative suit and tie and he'd still come off like the rebel he is to the core.
For another example, if you are deploying a departmental application, then there is no valid reason to purchase enterprise class hardware.
Agreed.
So you install a cheaper Sun box in that setting instead, and it works seamlessly with the enterprise hardware, because it's all running Solaris. That's called 'scalability.'
The FSF was insisting that all patches have their copyrights turned over, so the the FSF would 100% own the code.
The FSF insists that because it's far more difficult for them to pursue GPL violators in the legal system if they're not the 'owner' of the code. People can release code under the GPL without signing it over to the FSF, but then it's their responsiblity to enforce the GPL, not the FSF's responsibility. With a program like GNU Emacs, not signing the copyright over to the FSF would lead to a gradual erosion in their control over the code.
Of course, by providing only e-mail (and fax???) tech support, you insure that you'll never hear from customers who can't keep a connection going to send/receive email.
If you over promote the Usenet feed, you'll end up with some fat guy living in a single-wide** who will set up Pluckit and use up 70% of your total bandwidth downloading binary girlie pix.
(**his momma has a double-wide, which he helps make the payments on, in months when he's working)
To start a successful ISP you'll need a time machine that can transport you back 4-6 years. And going six years back might not even be enough. The biz is locked up now and the consolidation is in process. It's completely the wrong time to try to start one up. Unless you've got a source for cheap wholesale bandwidth and are way, way out in the hinterland somewhere that AOL, MSN, and Juno don't have a local number.
You've gotta kiss the ring on the NASA director's finger. Then you've got to prove at least 57% of your components were built using Union Labor, fill out 33,234 forms (in triplicate). After which the review process begins, which runs for 37 weeks. Oh, and you're paying the salary of the review staff during that time. They're all seasoned NASA employees, the clerical staff are all Teamsters.
I read Slashdot with.sigs disabled, with a threshold of 1, set to not show scores, and with the 'Light' box checked off. The 'Light' mode disables the display of post numbers, btw.
It's amazing what filtering out most of the flamebait has done to my karma score. I catch myself actually talking to the adults in these discussions from time to time.
(like the POSIX layer to Windows NT that was built just to get government check-offs), it ain't the real thing.
You're right, as far as you go.
The bolt-on POSIX from Microsoft is feeble.
If you install Interix, however, which Softway Systems developed, and Microsoft now owns, Windows NT can be legally branded a UNIX. Something not possible with Linux. The irony is kind of cool when you think about it, it's amazing that Gates even allowed the purchase of Softway.
Yeah. That's about $35 of RAM, as measured in the current market.
I remember when $35 worth of RAM was a single 9 bit row of 256K chips. I remember a time later when $35-50 was a 1 Meg SIMM. We typically had to have a bunch more of RAM back in those days to make our computers nominally useful. Nowadays 131072 kbytes worth of RAM is dirt cheap.
Get with the times. I enjoy fooling around with old hardware, too**. I'm not going to be a crybaby because I can't run Konqueror on my Z-80.
(**I received the 2K ROM image for a monitor program for a Z-80 based single board in email today. I'll be populating the SBC with RAM and ROM memory in 2K byte chunks. Thank goodness I still have some 2114 chips in storage.)
Then one specific version of one OS based on the Linux kernel would be brandable as UNIX. In other words, it would be worse than a waste of money, unless Red Hat or one of the other companies that makes a distribution based on the Linux kernel wanted to start along that track with some variation of one of their products.
No, a Kernel can NOT be branded as 'a UNIX.'
It would be far easier to brand one of the BSD os'es than Linux, for the reason that they have a more tightly integraged core userland.
Slashdot Mirror
Less than a year ago the columists at Linux Journal answered a question about NFS on Linux (I think it was someone with an IRIX system he was trying to connect to a Linux box) by recommending SAMBA instead.
Yes, that's right. A reverse engineered Microsoft 'protocol' was recommended over NFS, because it's implemented better under Linux.
NFS may have improved in the meantime. One would certainly hope it has.
That's why I run NetBSD on my Sparc hardware, as well as all of my i386 freenix hardware and all of my 68K Mac hardware. Because I want a standard system around all the platforms I have.
I'd have to run different 'distributions' of Linux on all of them.
Actually, no, that wouldn't happen.
It's trivial to 'bait' somebody like Stallman, it happens all the time at almost any public event he attends. All they'd have to go is get him going about how Linux should be named Lignux, or challange his assumptions in some way.
Stallman is easily distracted, because he's an ideologue, and used to preaching to a choir. You could dress him up in a conservative suit and tie and he'd still come off like the rebel he is to the core.
For another example, if you are deploying a departmental application, then there is no valid reason to purchase enterprise class hardware.
Agreed.
So you install a cheaper Sun box in that setting instead, and it works seamlessly with the enterprise hardware, because it's all running Solaris. That's called 'scalability.'
The question was asked in a general way.
He didn't even specify the name of his project, or the commercial interest involved.
ID can, however, fork the Quake code in ways that no other entity can, without releasing the source to their fork.
The FSF was insisting that all patches have their copyrights turned over, so the the FSF would 100% own the code.
The FSF insists that because it's far more difficult for them to pursue GPL violators in the legal system if they're not the 'owner' of the code. People can release code under the GPL without signing it over to the FSF, but then it's their responsiblity to enforce the GPL, not the FSF's responsibility. With a program like GNU Emacs, not signing the copyright over to the FSF would lead to a gradual erosion in their control over the code.
Well, he's talking about a modem pool with 16 incoming lines. Line campers become a problem.
Some photocopied fliers, stapleguns, and a 14 year old kid or two to distribute them.
as well as a 10mb website,
What is anybody going to do with a 10 milli-byte website?
typo: dubber=dinner
Of course, by providing only e-mail (and fax???) tech support, you insure that you'll never hear from customers who can't keep a connection going to send/receive email.
That, and they've got a free pork chop dubber on the first Tuesday of every month, for customers who have their bill paid by then. Right?
I don't think so.
If you over promote the Usenet feed, you'll end up with some fat guy living in a single-wide** who will set up Pluckit and use up 70% of your total bandwidth downloading binary girlie pix.
(**his momma has a double-wide, which he helps make the payments on, in months when he's working)
To start a successful ISP you'll need a time machine that can transport you back 4-6 years. And going six years back might not even be enough. The biz is locked up now and the consolidation is in process. It's completely the wrong time to try to start one up. Unless you've got a source for cheap wholesale bandwidth and are way, way out in the hinterland somewhere that AOL, MSN, and Juno don't have a local number.
I'm sure there's a group of enforcers already scheduled to roll in with APCs and dismantle his setup when it's not approved by the bureaucrats.
My Grandpa, in the 1960's, made what he called a 'Ski-Doo' out of parts from an old Studebaker. It had a wooden frame.
I grew up admiring him, but I'm glad he didn't try to build a rocket.
You've gotta kiss the ring on the NASA director's finger. Then you've got to prove at least 57% of your components were built using Union Labor, fill out 33,234 forms (in triplicate). After which the review process begins, which runs for 37 weeks. Oh, and you're paying the salary of the review staff during that time. They're all seasoned NASA employees, the clerical staff are all Teamsters.
I read Slashdot with .sigs disabled, with a threshold of 1, set to not show scores, and with the 'Light' box checked off. The 'Light' mode disables the display of post numbers, btw.
It's amazing what filtering out most of the flamebait has done to my karma score. I catch myself actually talking to the adults in these discussions from time to time.
Ah... No more or less portable that Windows XP.
Hmmm...
(well, actually slightly more portable...)
(like the POSIX layer to Windows NT that was built just to get government check-offs), it ain't the real thing.
You're right, as far as you go.
The bolt-on POSIX from Microsoft is feeble.
If you install Interix, however, which Softway Systems developed, and Microsoft now owns, Windows NT can be legally branded a UNIX. Something not possible with Linux. The irony is kind of cool when you think about it, it's amazing that Gates even allowed the purchase of Softway.
It's thoughtful of you all to help compile a list of websites where the owners of the UNIX trademark can make a visit and raise a little hell.
Yeah. That's about $35 of RAM, as measured in the current market.
I remember when $35 worth of RAM was a single 9 bit row of 256K chips. I remember a time later when $35-50 was a 1 Meg SIMM. We typically had to have a bunch more of RAM back in those days to make our computers nominally useful. Nowadays 131072 kbytes worth of RAM is dirt cheap.
Get with the times. I enjoy fooling around with old hardware, too**. I'm not going to be a crybaby because I can't run Konqueror on my Z-80.
(**I received the 2K ROM image for a monitor program for a Z-80 based single board in email today. I'll be populating the SBC with RAM and ROM memory in 2K byte chunks. Thank goodness I still have some 2114 chips in storage.)
That would mean that MacOS is also a UNIX, because they make that product too.
If you can't see what I'm getting at, just move along, please.
Then one specific version of one OS based on the Linux kernel would be brandable as UNIX. In other words, it would be worse than a waste of money, unless Red Hat or one of the other companies that makes a distribution based on the Linux kernel wanted to start along that track with some variation of one of their products.
No, a Kernel can NOT be branded as 'a UNIX.'
It would be far easier to brand one of the BSD os'es than Linux, for the reason that they have a more tightly integraged core userland.