[rescue] OT: Linux and USB on Intel
dpassmor at sneakers.org
Sun Apr 20 16:08:00 CDT 2003
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 04:32:02PM -0400, Linc Fessenden wrote:
This is x86.
This, I will grant you.
> I don't recall ever saying that? What I did say was that Linux has
> nothing to do with teaching people that cheap hardware that blows up is
> the way to go. That distinction, my friend, belongs properly with
> I never said that either - sheesh! What I said was that the GNU software
> you are referring to is *NOT* Linux. It pre-exists Linux by quite some
> time, in fact, I recall it being the *hottest* thing to install a bunch of
> GNU software on your early Sparcstations.
I was not referring to any GNU software in particular. I did not even use
the term GNU-- you introduced that. I said 'free', as I recall.
> And I suppose you lump in the NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD community there
> as well? It's the same stuff after all since we use all that GNU software
Sure, why not, I'll concede that. Anything that enables the use of x86
hardware in business applications, I am against.
> > 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
> > examples?
> Linux code base and userland software matures exponentially faster due to
> it's huge developer base. Linux/Gnu developers are not hampered by suits
> dictating development lines and generally create and update software that
> enhances and attaches to the current technology and problems they are
> using/tackling at the time.
Back up your claim. You've told me how it could be more modern-- now tell me
what is more modern about it.
> Sorry again, that is not my domain name - that's my friend who hosts this
> particular mail account for me. My domain name is
> linc.homeunix.org.. Furthermore I use and run SunOS, HPUX, Irix, NetBSD,
> OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and MACOS, on every kind of hardware you cvan imagine
> from junk x86 to old uVax - so a zealot I am not. I am a fan though. I
> see a lot of advantages to running Linux and where is falls short, I am
> willing to help out and or wait for the inevitable and quick improvement.
> That is a fact that I will argue with you. While you may see Linux taking
> the place of Unix boxen, I see the other side.. In my company I have used
> Linux to replace *countless* Windows NT, and 2000 servers - making the
> hardware and services run infinately more stable than it's microsoft
> equivilent (and I use that term very loosely).
That's very good to hear! It's just not what I see, or even hear very often
from my colleagues.
> I have seen several instance where businesses change from Unix to Linux
> but mostly that was because of a necessaary hardware upgrade. $1000 of
> Linux machines can outperform $1000000 worth of old Vax equipt - for short
> term use anyway, and byt the time the PC parts start to break down, they
> have already been depreciated to nothing.
Yes, conceded, considering most hardware depreciates to nothing after 3-4
years by most accounting standards.
> As far as I am concerned and I bet many will agree, the only way to get
> rid of the windows and x86 problem is to convince Apple to lower their
> darn prices.
That would be nice, too.
More information about the rescue