[rescue] OT: Linux and USB on Intel

David Passmore dpassmor at sneakers.org
Sun Apr 20 14:56:55 CDT 2003

On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 03:29:23PM -0400, Linc Fessenden wrote:

> Hmm..  Seems to me that Sun and Ibm is pushing Linux as a solution on
> their hardware which is decidedly not commodity x86 junk.

I challenge you to point me to a SPARC system at a reasonably large company
that came with Linux installed from the factory. As for IBM's push for Linux
on the zSeries, I'd like to see an example of this as well running at a
large company, and I'd like to know what applications it is running.

> What??  This is that same hardware that windows runs on right?  And it's
> Linux that thought them that?  Take a look around man - There are Linux
> servers that are running on cheap commodity 486 hardware and early
> pentiums that have been running reliably without so much as a reboot for
> years...  How does that show people that hardware failures are normal and
> it's ok to replace machines constantly.   Hell, I use Linux on older
> machines to make them *keep* working and be useful.

Are you claiming that x86 hardware in general, has an equal or greater
mean-time-to-failure than dedicated UNIX hardware from manufacturers like
Sun, HP, IBM, and hell, even Apple? I think several people on this list
would disagree with you.

> Got news for you there too - Your opinions are getting in the way of
> established facts.  The software you are referring to is not Linux at all
> but GNU software, which was a hot item *way* before the first Linux kernel
> came out.  Linux, while it uses some GNU software, also uses and supports
> some non-free software as well, in fact, quite a bit of it.

Linux could not exist without GNU software, period. In fact, I challenge you
to build a Linux system without any GNU software. Good luck.

As for my comment about intellectual property, there is significant
intersection between the Linux 'community' and others... and I'll leave it
at that, since it's a subjective observation that can't be 'proven', but is
patently obvious.

> And as for the OS concepts from 20 years ago being OK today, Linux isn't the
> perveyor of that, but look instead at Sun, and IBM, and HP/DecpaQ..

I'm genuinely curious here. What do you mean? How is Linux more modern and
mature than any of these operating system offerings? Can you name some

> I am not picking a fight here, but dang man...

Look at your domain name. You're a zealot, and I'm okay with that. I also
realize that that means that this will be more of an argument than a debate,
and that you see me as attacking Linux (and I am). In fact, if I weren't so
bored, I likely wouldn't have replied. :)

The fact remains that several companies are migrating from big iron to x86
boxes running Linux, and there are documented cases I could give you URLs
for, if you like. I could also relate my personal experiences with this
phenomenon. Though I have no figures to prove it at the moment, it is my
conjecture and experience that Linux is eroding other UNIXes, *not* Windows,
and that it is in fact killing the only real hope we have of ridding the
world of Windows and x86, making Dave McGuire's worst nightmare come true
(even though he doesn't seem to see it the same way that I do).


More information about the rescue mailing list