How valuable is a computer? - Linux

This is a discussion on How valuable is a computer? - Linux ; In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel wrote on Tue, 6 May 2008 19:01:38 -0400 : > > "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message > news:2cs6f5-qc5.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut >> >> wrote >> on Tue, 6 May 2008 16:18:24 -0400 >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 67

Thread: How valuable is a computer?

  1. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel

    wrote
    on Tue, 6 May 2008 19:01:38 -0400
    <16727$4820e353$13235@news.teranews.com>:
    >
    > "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    > news:2cs6f5-qc5.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Tue, 6 May 2008 16:18:24 -0400
    >> :
    >>> * alt peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> Apparently not very valuable. We're having our annual "put your crap to
    >>>> the curb" event where everyone puts all their unused stuff on the curb
    >>>> for everyone else to root through. Some people are looking for stuff
    >>>> they
    >>>> can use, others are scrap metal dealers that sell the metals to be
    >>>> recycled (not worth it for the average person to do, but it is worth it
    >>>> for these guys). After so many weeks, the city comes by and takes what
    >>>> is
    >>>> left over away to be recycled or put in the landfill.
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, I picked up 4 useful machines sitting on the curb yesterday
    >>>> (there
    >>>> were 6 total). One is a small footprint P3 Celeron. The other 3 are all
    >>>> P4: s478 1.7GHz Celeron D; s478 3.0GHz P4 w/HT; LGA778 Celeron D 3GHz.
    >>>> I've tested 3 of these boards already.
    >>>
    >>> You dumpster diver you!

    >>
    >> Indeed. I'll admit I hope for no ill effects such as
    >> inadvertantly seeing someone's data.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. They might be getting a
    >>>> little dated, but I would never think about tossing a P4 less than
    >>>> 1.5GHz. Of those machines, 2 of them has XP licenses attached (not that
    >>>> I
    >>>> need them). I'm a little surprised that they would just up and toss
    >>>> such
    >>>> useful equipment. I originally thought they were really old and all I
    >>>> wanted was the ethernet cards out of them.
    >>>>
    >>>> Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
    >>>> life.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Four machines saved from Windows.
    >>>
    >>> Did I ever tell you you're my hero?
    >>>

    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Pedant point: they were not saved from Windows.
    >> They probably ran Windows prior to discard. ;-)
    >>
    >> Still not a bad thing, considering the acquisition price of
    >> said hardware, and they now have a second life as usable
    >> machinery, as opposed to heading for the recycling bin --
    >> or, worse, the trash heap (which in some locales is illegal
    >> because of, among other things, heavy metal toxins).
    >>
    >> I'll admit to some curiosity as to which is best, though,
    >> from a cost standpoint (costs including of course such
    >> things as environmental damage, power consumption, and
    >> OS/app replacement):
    >>
    >> [1] installing Linux on "outdated" machines.
    >> [2] keeping "outdated" machines on older copies of Windows.
    >> [3] recycling machines and purchasing new ones with Windows.
    >>
    >> If one wants to get really silly (and is in a business
    >> environment), one can include additional capabilities:
    >>
    >> [4] installing Linux on "outdated" machines, and using ssh to
    >> connect to a central server which does all the heavy lifting,
    >> with the machines displaying the results (ssh -X[Y]).
    >> [5] installing Linux on "outdated" machines, and using rdesktop
    >> to connect to a central server.
    >> [6] recycling machines and purchasing new ones with Windows,
    >> using remote desktop to connect to a central server.

    >
    > Since "virtualization" is all the rage lately it would seem to be the
    > winner. It's more cost effective to have a huge honkin box with lots of
    > power than to manage dozens of individual machines.
    >
    > For servers at least.
    >


    Exactly. And that huge honking box is able to run Windows
    system images, right?

    As for virtualization -- *Unix* had it in the 80's.
    Every process could use instructions with impunity, but
    the kernel was the final arbiter as to whether anything
    interesting happened if one used a privileged instruction
    such as Intel's INT.

    The only real difference AFAICT: a modern virtualizer can
    also trap IO port read/writes and interpret the results
    of a specific region of virtual memory in the sandbox,
    displaying the results, allowing for Windows to be run
    within Windows (with VmWare being the virtualizer), among
    other combinations. (Personally, I prefer Linux in Linux.)

    [.sigsnip]

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  2. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew Halliwell

    wrote
    on Wed, 7 May 2008 00:23:27 +0100
    :
    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about this do
    >> tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via scripting or the
    >> command line that you can manage in linux. (This is the part where you
    >> slink away.)

    >
    > As you claim to be the windows expert here,
    > why don't you tell me?


    I'll do what I can here. I don't claim to be
    all knowledgable about Windows, but have knocked
    around a bit.

    > Can you install any software without going
    > through the wizard crap?


    Depends on the software, though most software uses
    installers such as InstallShield or InstallAnywhere,
    presumably because of that horrible hacked-up
    lock-when-reading-so-I-can't-update filesystem Windows
    uses by default. These installers set up things so that
    a reboot moves the files into their final resting place,
    when the system is known quiescent.

    > Can you edit config files in all those windows
    > programs without touching a GUI?


    Um...what config files? Win95 had the "innovation"
    that stuffed everything into the registry hive.
    (Oddly, a fair number of .ini files still exist
    when I mount my XP partition. Not sure what
    to make of this.)

    > all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML,
    > sometimes flat text files) and usually very easily
    > edited in textmode consoles.


    And with built-in documentation, if one's
    not deleted the comments. There appears to be
    a hook for this in Windows' registry, but I'm
    not sure it's consistently applied.

    >
    > What about programs that store their settings
    > in the infamous registry?
    > Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?


    I think so, but I'd have to look. I'm not that familiar
    with REGEDIT's text-line mode.

    http://www.robvanderwoude.com/regedit.html

    shows some examples.

    > Is there even a textmode program that can
    > safely edit the registry?


    Define "safely".

    >
    > More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?


    Define "turn off".

    > On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste
    > of resources better used in the actual cluster.
    > So, why do you need a GUI when you don't even have a
    > video card to show it?
    >


    Define "need". :-)

    One of the things I like about Linux and the
    tools surrounding it is the flexibility.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
    for(; ;
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: How valuable is a computer?


    "Andrew Halliwell" wrote in message
    news:fs57f5-s8a.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about this
    >> do
    >> tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via scripting or the
    >> command line that you can manage in linux. (This is the part where you
    >> slink away.)

    >
    > As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
    > Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?
    > Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without touching
    > a
    > GUI? all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML, sometimes flat
    > text
    > files) and usually very easily edited in textmode consoles.
    >
    > What about programs that store their settings in the infamous registry?
    > Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
    > Is there even a textmode program that can safely edit the registry?
    >
    > More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
    > On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources better
    > used
    > in the actual cluster. So, why do you need a GUI when you don't even have
    > a
    > video card to show it?


    Follow-up. I checked and starting with Windows Server 2003 you can run the
    machine in a "headless" configuration. You still need to display in order
    to initially install the OS but once installed, you no longer need a local
    display.


    Abstract

    The Microsoft® Windows® Server 2003 family of operating systems provides
    native support for "headless" server operation on Windows platforms-that
    is, support for operating without a local display. This paper describes the
    hardware and firmware requirements and implementations guidelines to best
    support Windows headless functionality.




    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  4. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:22:19 GMT, 7 wrote:
    >Andrew Halliwell wrote:


    >> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Matt" wrote in message
    >>> news:fq2Uj.2620$Cn4.675@news02.roc.ny...
    >>>> alt wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. Anyhow. I'll be installing
    >>>>> Linux on these boxes to give them a second life.
    >>>>
    >>>> You could wire a few of them together to experiment with parallel or
    >>>> distributed computing: make your own toy supercomputer---running Linux,
    >>>> of course, not Windows.
    >>>
    >>> Why not use VMWare (or something like VirtualBox) to create this toy
    >>> supercomputer? Why waste all this extra energy for nothing? (x-many
    >>> power supplies, x-many video cards, etc.)

    >>
    >> Once they're setup, you don't need video cards
    >> or keyboards
    >> or mice
    >>
    >> But then, in the wonderful world of windows, a headless machine is
    >> unmanagable because it can't be administered fully without access to the
    >> GUI. Oh, I suppose you could VNC into it, but that's incredibly wasteful
    >> of network bandwidth and not something you want to do when you're
    >> clustering.


    >Disk throughput which you can achieve only with lots of disks in parallel
    >machines.



    Irrelevent.

  5. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    On Wed, 7 May 2008 00:23:27 +0100, Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >Ezekiel wrote:
    >> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about this do
    >> tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via scripting or the
    >> command line that you can manage in linux. (This is the part where you
    >> slink away.)


    >As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
    >Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?

    and three reboots?

  6. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    On Tue, 06 May 2008 19:35:16 +0000, Matt wrote:

    > alt wrote:
    >
    >> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines.
    >>
    >> Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
    >> life.

    >
    > You could wire a few of them together to experiment with parallel or
    > distributed computing: make your own toy supercomputer---running Linux,
    > of course, not Windows.


    I've never actually tried that. I'm not sure I'd have an application for
    it though.

    I will be using them to test out new software and stuff like that.

  7. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:22:55 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    >> Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the
    >> curb so that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global
    >> warming.


    I think reusing these machines would use less energy and have less of an
    environmental impact than purchasing a freshly built machine that has
    just travelled across the pacific from China to North America and has
    then travelled by either rail or by transport truck around north america
    to and from distribution centres to retail stores.

    And by the way, my province uses Hydro Electricity, not fossil fuel
    generated electricity.

    >
    > Ezekiel does have a point; newer hardware is (presumably!) more
    > efficient, and is also reasonably priced. I'll admit to some curiosity
    > as to whether one has done power price calculations.


    I can't say that I have made such calculations. I will be using these
    systems for test, so its not like they'll be running for any length of
    time.

  8. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    On Tue, 06 May 2008 13:41:06 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
    >
    > wrote
    > on Tue, 6 May 2008 16:18:24 -0400
    > :
    >> * alt peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> Apparently not very valuable. We're having our annual "put your crap
    >>> to the curb" event where everyone puts all their unused stuff on the
    >>> curb for everyone else to root through. Some people are looking for
    >>> stuff they can use, others are scrap metal dealers that sell the
    >>> metals to be recycled (not worth it for the average person to do, but
    >>> it is worth it for these guys). After so many weeks, the city comes by
    >>> and takes what is left over away to be recycled or put in the
    >>> landfill.
    >>>
    >>> Well, I picked up 4 useful machines sitting on the curb yesterday
    >>> (there were 6 total). One is a small footprint P3 Celeron. The other 3
    >>> are all P4: s478 1.7GHz Celeron D; s478 3.0GHz P4 w/HT; LGA778 Celeron
    >>> D 3GHz. I've tested 3 of these boards already.

    >>
    >> You dumpster diver you!

    >
    > Indeed. I'll admit I hope for no ill effects such as inadvertantly
    > seeing someone's data.


    They pulled the drives (very smart of them), but even then, I may not be
    a saint, but I'm also not a devil. I have no interest in other peoples'
    data.

    >
    >
    >>> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. They might be getting a
    >>> little dated, but I would never think about tossing a P4 less than
    >>> 1.5GHz. Of those machines, 2 of them has XP licenses attached (not
    >>> that I need them). I'm a little surprised that they would just up and
    >>> toss such useful equipment. I originally thought they were really old
    >>> and all I wanted was the ethernet cards out of them.
    >>>
    >>> Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
    >>> life.

    >>
    >>
    >> Four machines saved from Windows.
    >>
    >> Did I ever tell you you're my hero?
    >>

    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Pedant point: they were not saved from Windows. They probably ran
    > Windows prior to discard. ;-)


    I imagine they did. The hard drives had been stripped out.

    >
    > Still not a bad thing, considering the acquisition price of said
    > hardware, and they now have a second life as usable machinery, as
    > opposed to heading for the recycling bin -- or, worse, the trash heap
    > (which in some locales is illegal because of, among other things, heavy
    > metal toxins).


    It's illegal here. I know of one local computer shop that takes computers
    for recycling. He sends them to a special needs centre who takes the
    machines apart and puts the metal in for recycling (it helps fund their
    operation) and seperates out the plastics for recycling and the
    motherboard parts... I have no idea what they do with these and other PC
    Boards. Also, one brand of bottle recyclers also takes computers to be
    melted down at a refinery... motherboards and all.

    > I'll admit to some curiosity as to which is best, though, from a cost
    > standpoint (costs including of course such things as environmental
    > damage, power consumption, and OS/app replacement):
    >
    > [1] installing Linux on "outdated" machines. [2] keeping "outdated"
    > machines on older copies of Windows. [3] recycling machines and
    > purchasing new ones with Windows.



    I would think that 1 and 2 would be the better options (in that order no
    less). I prefer Linux, but I understand if people prefer to use something
    they are familiar with. Microsoft is calling XP and 2000 "outdated", but
    I think that's just a load of garbage they try and sell so people will
    upgrage to their latest greatest (which as the net will tell you, ain't
    so great). If people want to continue using their old Operating Systems,
    I'm all for it.

    When I look at the past, I see Windows. When I look to the future, I see
    Linux.

    >
    > If one wants to get really silly (and is in a business environment), one
    > can include additional capabilities:
    >
    > [4] installing Linux on "outdated" machines, and using ssh to connect to
    > a central server which does all the heavy lifting, with the machines
    > displaying the results (ssh -X[Y]). [5] installing Linux on "outdated"
    > machines, and using rdesktop to connect to a central server.
    > [6] recycling machines and purchasing new ones with Windows, using
    > remote desktop to connect to a central server.


    your forgot [7] installing Linux on on "outdated machines" and using
    XDMCP to a central server.




  9. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    On Tue, 06 May 2008 16:18:24 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * alt peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Apparently not very valuable. We're having our annual "put your crap to
    >> the curb" event where everyone puts all their unused stuff on the curb
    >> for everyone else to root through. Some people are looking for stuff
    >> they can use, others are scrap metal dealers that sell the metals to be
    >> recycled (not worth it for the average person to do, but it is worth it
    >> for these guys). After so many weeks, the city comes by and takes what
    >> is left over away to be recycled or put in the landfill.
    >>
    >> Well, I picked up 4 useful machines sitting on the curb yesterday
    >> (there were 6 total). One is a small footprint P3 Celeron. The other 3
    >> are all P4: s478 1.7GHz Celeron D; s478 3.0GHz P4 w/HT; LGA778 Celeron
    >> D 3GHz. I've tested 3 of these boards already.

    >
    > You dumpster diver you!


    No dumpsters! It was on the curb! :P

    >
    >> Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. They might be getting a
    >> little dated, but I would never think about tossing a P4 less than
    >> 1.5GHz. Of those machines, 2 of them has XP licenses attached (not that
    >> I need them). I'm a little surprised that they would just up and toss
    >> such useful equipment. I originally thought they were really old and
    >> all I wanted was the ethernet cards out of them.
    >>
    >> Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
    >> life.

    >
    >
    > Four machines saved from Windows.
    >
    > Did I ever tell you you're my hero?
    >

    >


    ha ha. way to make a sick man laugh (chest cold/flu... not sure which,
    but I feel like death).



  10. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about
    >> this do tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via
    >> scripting or the command line that you can manage in linux. (This is
    >> the part where you slink away.)

    >
    > As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
    > Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?


    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr....mspx?mfr=true




    > Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without
    > touching a GUI?


    What do you mean? When you boot Windows you're working in a graphical
    interface (the Windows shell - Explorer.exe). Near as I can tell it uses
    about 17mb of memory.

    And who - except the rare *nix dinosaur - cares about running a computer
    only from the command line?

    And having a GUI on the server hasn't stopped Windows from beating up on
    Linux in the server room (sales and unit installs).

    You lose again, spike.



    > all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML,
    > sometimes flat text files) and usually very easily edited in textmode
    > consoles.


    Yes, and they're scattered willy nilly all over the hard drive, in no
    standard location, with no standard naming conventions, and with no standard
    presentation format/layout.

    http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/...crspfiles.html



    > What about programs that store their settings in the infamous
    > registry?


    Which is virtually every Windows program nowadays. And what's so infamous
    about it?

    (note: it is an collection of often arcane, unreadable settings, but the
    idea is sound. And just to head off any lying lies you were thinking about
    making: corrupt registry's are very uncommon)



    > Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
    > Is there even a textmode program that can safely edit the registry?


    Of course you can read/write/delete/insert the registry with VBScript code
    in text files created at the command line (or with any text editor). And
    with Powershell via the command line.


    > More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?


    No. This is an advantage of Linux.

    As of WinServer2008 you can install a GUI-less server.


    > On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources
    > better used in the actual cluster.


    Ever seen all the bull**** waste of resources installed by default on any
    modern Linux distro, especially a KDE-based one? I went to install Sabayon
    on VirtualBox a couple nights ago - it wanted 12gb of free disk space,
    including some optional stuff I selected.



    > So, why do you need a GUI when you
    > don't even have a video card to show it?


    Who needs a video card to show a GUI?




  11. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS

    wrote
    on Tue, 6 May 2008 23:53:55 -0400
    :
    > Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>> Oh really. Since you're pretending to actually know something about
    >>> this do tell me exactly what can't be managed in Windows via
    >>> scripting or the command line that you can manage in linux. (This is
    >>> the part where you slink away.)

    >>
    >> As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
    >> Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?

    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr....mspx?mfr=true
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without
    >> touching a GUI?

    >
    > What do you mean? When you boot Windows you're working in a graphical
    > interface (the Windows shell - Explorer.exe). Near as I can tell it uses
    > about 17mb of memory.
    >
    > And who - except the rare *nix dinosaur - cares about running a computer
    > only from the command line?
    >
    > And having a GUI on the server hasn't stopped Windows from beating up on
    > Linux in the server room (sales and unit installs).
    >
    > You lose again, spike.
    >


    DFS does have a point, but ideally both should be
    supported. (And in Windows, both are, though the text
    support is usually pretty primitive compared to the GUI.
    In Linux, the reverse is generally true.)

    >
    >
    >> all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML,
    >> sometimes flat text files) and usually very easily edited in textmode
    >> consoles.

    >
    > Yes, and they're scattered willy nilly all over the hard drive, in no
    > standard location, with no standard naming conventions, and with no standard
    > presentation format/layout.
    >
    > http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/...crspfiles.html
    >
    >
    >
    >> What about programs that store their settings in the infamous
    >> registry?

    >
    > Which is virtually every Windows program nowadays. And what's so infamous
    > about it?
    >
    > (note: it is an collection of often arcane, unreadable settings, but the
    > idea is sound. And just to head off any lying lies you were thinking about
    > making: corrupt registry's are very uncommon)


    It is not unreadable. Use REGEDIT to see the settings.

    Some of the settings can be a bit obscure, yes.

    >
    >
    >
    >> Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
    >> Is there even a textmode program that can safely edit the registry?

    >
    > Of course you can read/write/delete/insert the registry with VBScript code
    > in text files created at the command line (or with any text editor). And
    > with Powershell via the command line.


    Or with JScript or any .NET language. There's probably even
    a Perl module.

    >
    >
    >> More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?

    >
    > No. This is an advantage of Linux.


    No, this is *NOT* an advantage of Linux, as Linux has no GUI
    as such. You are talking about the X/KDE/Gnome level now.

    >
    > As of WinServer2008 you can install a GUI-less server.


    As of Win95 one could also install a GUI-less system, though
    the functionality thereof was mostly intended for diagnostic use.

    >
    >
    >> On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources
    >> better used in the actual cluster.

    >
    > Ever seen all the bull**** waste of resources installed by default on any
    > modern Linux distro, especially a KDE-based one? I went to install Sabayon
    > on VirtualBox a couple nights ago - it wanted 12gb of free disk space,
    > including some optional stuff I selected.
    >


    There are other installation methods, you know.
    I'm working on some virtual machines right now. (Turns
    out the Gentoo 2008 liveDVD sets up a fairly basic XFCE
    environment right out of the box, if the autodetection of
    one's card works...the QEMU emulator emulates absolutely
    ancient Cirrus hardware.)

    >
    >
    >> So, why do you need a GUI when you
    >> don't even have a video card to show it?

    >
    > Who needs a video card to show a GUI?
    >


    True; Windows supports both Remote Desktop and VNC. (The former
    may not be available on all desktops as a service, though it
    undoubtedly is available on most desktops as a *client*. The
    latter is a 3rd-party tool, readily installable.)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
    item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  12. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    Verily I say unto thee, that alt spake thusly:

    > I think reusing these machines would use less energy and have less of
    > an environmental impact than purchasing a freshly built machine that
    > has just travelled across the pacific from China to North America and
    > has then travelled by either rail or by transport truck around north
    > america to and from distribution centres to retail stores.


    "Ezekiel" has the brain of a peanut. Only an idiot would think dumping
    un-biodegradable junk into a landfill site could be less environmentally
    harmful than recycling it.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    06:00:57 up 138 days, 2:36, 6 users, load average: 0.07, 0.08, 0.18

  13. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > It is not unreadable. Use REGEDIT to see the settings.
    >
    > Some of the settings can be a bit obscure, yes.


    This is what I mean by 'unreadable':
    http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfs0/DFS_Registry.PNG



    >>> More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?

    >>
    >> No. This is an advantage of Linux.

    >
    > No, this is *NOT* an advantage of Linux, as Linux has no GUI
    > as such. You are talking about the X/KDE/Gnome level now.


    I see you haven't lost any of the pedant in your old age.





  14. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    On May 6, 11:11 am, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    > "alt" wrote in message
    >
    > news:9sOdndFlZOQEA73VnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >
    >
    >
    > > Apparently not very valuable. We're having our annual "put your crap to
    > > the curb" event where everyone puts all their unused stuff on the curb
    > > for everyone else to root through. Some people are looking for stuff they
    > > can use, others are scrap metal dealers that sell the metals to be
    > > recycled (not worth it for the average person to do, but it is worth it
    > > for these guys). After so many weeks, the city comes by and takes what is
    > > left over away to be recycled or put in the landfill.

    >
    > > Well, I picked up 4 useful machines sitting on the curb yesterday (there
    > > were 6 total). One is a small footprint P3 Celeron. The other 3 are all
    > > P4: s478 1.7GHz Celeron D; s478 3.0GHz P4 w/HT; LGA778 Celeron D 3GHz.
    > > I've tested 3 of these boards already.

    >
    > > Here's the thing. These aren't bad machines. They might be getting a
    > > little dated, but I would never think about tossing a P4 less than
    > > 1.5GHz. Of those machines, 2 of them has XP licenses attached (not that I
    > > need them). I'm a little surprised that they would just up and toss such
    > > useful equipment. I originally thought they were really old and all I
    > > wanted was the ethernet cards out of them.

    >
    > > Anyhow. I'll be installing Linux on these boxes to give them a second
    > > life.

    >
    > Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the curb so
    > that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global warming.
    >
    > ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**


    Yeah, better that it all goes straight to the land fill just because
    it doesn't meet Vista Basic requirements.


  15. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
    >>
    >>> Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without
    >>> touching a GUI?

    >>
    >> What do you mean? When you boot Windows you're working in a graphical
    >> interface (the Windows shell - Explorer.exe). Near as I can tell it uses
    >> about 17mb of memory.


    How many users does that represent on a web server?

    Not to mention the resources taken up by the driver and all of the DLLs
    needed to support the GUI applications.

    And the potential for extra trouble due to interactions between apps and
    video driver.

    Only a moron needs a GUI wizard to administer a server.

    >> And who - except the rare *nix dinosaur - cares about running a computer
    >> only from the command line?


    The guy at Microsoft and InfomationWeek, that's who. Recent article:
    (IIRC) "Feeding your inner UNIX geek", about Microsoft's Powershell, and
    how this CLI tools can do a lot for you, and in fact is now beefed up
    with better remote management capabilities. Mentioned is how many
    people took to it.

    >> And having a GUI on the server hasn't stopped Windows from beating up on
    >> Linux in the server room (sales and unit installs).


    Sales? So what? Practically everyone who has ever used Linux as free
    software in a technical environment is running it as a server of some
    kind.

    Unit installs? Who can count them? They're countless!

    >> You lose again, spike.


    --
    One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to
    be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive
    things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this
    and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE
    capabilities.
    -- Bill Gates, 1998 a memo to the Office product group[2]

  16. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
    >>
    >> Since "virtualization" is all the rage lately it would seem to be the
    >> winner. It's more cost effective to have a huge honkin box with lots of
    >> power than to manage dozens of individual machines.
    >>
    >> For servers at least.

    >
    > Exactly. And that huge honking box is able to run Windows
    > system images, right?


    Indeed. The extra license fees are /grrrreeeeeeeeeat/ for Microsoft's
    bottom line.

    And Zeke forgets that, once you fill up a machine, it's nice to be able
    to add more machines to the mix.

    I hope he doesn't forget to pay up all his server licenses.

    > As for virtualization -- *Unix* had it in the 80's.


    IBM had it in 1966, I noticed in an article yesterday.

    --
    Bill Gates is a very rich man today ... and do you want to know why? The answer
    is one word: versions.
    -- Dave Barry

  17. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    * alt peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > ha ha. way to make a sick man laugh (chest cold/flu... not sure which,
    > but I feel like death).


    To your health!

    --
    Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether the idea will move
    the industry forward, they ask, 'how will it help us sell more copies of
    Windows?'
    -- Bill Gates, The Seattle Weekly, (April 30, 1998)[2]

  18. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    * bobbie peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On May 6, 11:11 am, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    >>
    >> Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the curb so
    >> that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global warming.

    >
    > Yeah, better that it all goes straight to the land fill just because
    > it doesn't meet Vista Basic requirements.


    He sure is a dumbass, isn't he?

    --
    People always fear change. People feared electricity when it was invented,
    didn't they? People feared coal, they feared gas-powered engines...
    There will always be ignorance, and ignorance leads to fear. But with time,
    people will come to accept their silicon masters.
    -- Bill Gates

  19. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:

    >Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>(snip snot)

    >
    >As you claim to be the windows expert here, why don't you tell me?
    >Can you install any software without going through the wizard crap?
    >Can you edit config files in all those windows programs without touching a
    >GUI? all the linux ones are ASCII text (sometimes XML, sometimes flat text
    >files) and usually very easily edited in textmode consoles.
    >
    >What about programs that store their settings in the infamous registry?
    >Can you modify their settings without touching a GUI?
    >Is there even a textmode program that can safely edit the registry?
    >
    >More to the point, can you turn OFF the GUI?
    >On a headless box, it is a complete and utter waste of resources better used
    >in the actual cluster. So, why do you need a GUI when you don't even have a
    >video card to show it?


    This is where the fsckwitted troll slinks away.


  20. Re: How valuable is a computer?

    alt wrote:

    >>> Wonderful. Use linux and power up 4-5 more machines you found on the
    >>> curb so that you can needlessly use energy and contribute to global
    >>> warming.

    >
    > I think reusing these machines would use less energy and have less of an
    > environmental impact than purchasing a freshly built machine


    Hadron is blowing smoke---not at all unusual.

    Suppose a new machine uses 50W less than a reused one, although I
    seriously doubt that the difference is that large.

    A typical cost for power in the US is ten cents per kilowatt-hour:
    http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/electricprices.html
    So you would pay twelve cents more per day if you ran the reused machine
    continually. That comes to $43.80 per year if you run the computer
    24/7. It comes to $3.65 per year if you run it two hours per day.

    Many of the newer CPUs have far greater maximum power usage than ones a
    few years old. If the user leaves the machine on and parked at a
    CPU-hogging web page, the CPU may be maxed out, in which case the newer
    high-power system may use _more_ power than the older one.

    Hey, there are many people for whom a 3 GHz HT P4 will be more than
    adequate for a few more years.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast