Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoramus31561@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
>[color=green]
>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>> higher.[/color]
>
> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
> the rule.
>
> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
> Windows stuff all things told.[/color]

My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.

i

Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
[color=blue]
> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoramus31561@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>>> higher.[/color]
>>
>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
>> the rule.
>>
>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
>> Windows stuff all things told.[/color]
>
> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
>
> i[/color]

Which apps?

On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
>[color=green]
>> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoramus31561@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>>>> higher.
>>>
>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
>>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
>>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
>>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
>>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
>>> the rule.
>>>
>>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
>>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
>>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
>>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
>>> Windows stuff all things told.[/color]
>>
>> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
>> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
>>
>> i[/color]
>
> Which apps?[/color]

proprietary trading.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
[url]http://improve-usenet.org/[/url]

Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
[color=blue]
> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoramus31561@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>>>>> higher.
>>>>
>>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
>>>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
>>>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
>>>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
>>>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
>>>> the rule.
>>>>
>>>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
>>>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
>>>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
>>>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
>>>> Windows stuff all things told.
>>>
>>> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
>>> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
>>>
>>> i[/color]
>>
>> Which apps?[/color]
>
> proprietary trading.[/color]

But which apps?

What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?

On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
>[color=green]
>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoramus31561@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>>>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>>>>>> higher.
>>>>>
>>>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
>>>>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
>>>>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
>>>>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
>>>>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
>>>>> the rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
>>>>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
>>>>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
>>>>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
>>>>> Windows stuff all things told.
>>>>
>>>> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
>>>> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
>>>>
>>>> i
>>>
>>> Which apps?[/color]
>>
>> proprietary trading.[/color]
>
> But which apps?
>
> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?
>[/color]

Mostly C++ and some perl.

We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
port)

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
[url]http://improve-usenet.org/[/url]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:33:42 -0500, Ignoramus26581 wrote:
[color=blue]
> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoramus31561@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>>>>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>>>>>>> higher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
>>>>>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
>>>>>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
>>>>>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
>>>>>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
>>>>>> the rule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
>>>>>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
>>>>>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
>>>>>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
>>>>>> Windows stuff all things told.
>>>>>
>>>>> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
>>>>> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
>>>>>
>>>>> i
>>>>
>>>> Which apps?
>>>
>>> proprietary trading.[/color]
>>
>> But which apps?
>>
>> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?
>>[/color]
>
> Mostly C++ and some perl.
>
> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
> port)[/color]

So they are *proprietary but they are not proprietary*...
Makes sense to me.....
I think?????

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
[url]http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/[/url]
Please Visit [url]www.linsux.org[/url]

Ignoramus26581 wrote:
[color=blue]
> Mostly C++ and some perl.
>
> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
> port)[/color]

Windoze is /not/ POSIX compliant. It never was, and never can be.

C.

Christopher Hunter <cehunter@invalid.inv> writes:
[color=blue]
> Ignoramus26581 wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Mostly C++ and some perl.
>>
>> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
>> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
>> port)[/color]
>
> Windoze is /not/ POSIX compliant. It never was, and never can be.
>
> C.[/color]

Not 100% no.

But Interix goes a long way.

Hadron wrote:
[color=blue]
> Christopher Hunter <cehunter@invalid.inv> writes:
>[color=green]
>> Ignoramus26581 wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Mostly C++ and some perl.
>>>
>>> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
>>> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
>>> port)[/color]
>>
>> Windoze is /not/ POSIX compliant. It never was, and never can be.
>>
>> C.[/color]
>
> Not 100% no.[/color]

XP and Server2003 not at all. They don't have the posix subsystem anymore.
No real loss, though. The Posix subsystem from NT was a riot
[color=blue]
> But Interix goes a long way.[/color]

Still not far enough. WSU may be a try, but still just a nice try
--
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course

After takin' a swig o' grog, Ignoramus26581 belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
[color=blue]
> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>
>>>> Which apps?
>>>
>>> proprietary trading.[/color]
>>
>> But which apps?
>>
>> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?[/color]
>
> Mostly C++ and some perl.
>
> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
> port)[/color]

It takes a little effort to write code that runs on Linux and Windows,
but I think it pays off in ways besides just having the same application
available on your favorite platform(s). Your code also gets a good
workout from the syntax checkers of more than one compiler. (This same
effect occurs as your compiler(s) get upgrading, too).

I had to lock into gcc/g++ 4.1 for our project because some of our
cross-platform libraries and apps wouldn't build. I had a day off
yesterday, to I used it to figure out what was wrong (mostly it was just
that gcc/g++'s header-file cleanup exposed some developer's forgetting
to include <memory> and <string.h> in some modules.

And I also found that some developers didn't know how to declare an enum
typedef, and both Visual C++ and the earlier gcc weren't calling them on
it. Some also had functions that returned "const int" and such.

Pretty minor, just irritating to an anal-retentive coder like me.

Back to the cross-platform stuff. I found it was possible
(though not at all trivial) to wrap up the ALSA library and one of the
Windows audio models in a callback-based class, to play audio files.

Threads were actually a bit difficult, but the pthreads_w32 library now
looks like the way to go (to me, anyway).

GUIs have been cross-platform for a long time.

As you note, you have avoid the single-vendor trap up front. Sometimes
you have to hound your developers about it. Microsoft is kind of
sneaky, to my way of thinking, with the CLI/C++ stuff. Example:

[url]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/05/cplusplus_cli/[/url]

Stroustrop's take:

[url]http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#CppCLI[/url]

Moderated ranting:

[url]http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_frm/thread/84253d37f970dd2b?q=C%2B%2B%2FCLI&hl=en&[/url]

--
The fountain code has been tightened slightly so you can no longer dip objects
into a fountain or drink from one while you are floating in mid-air due to
levitation.

Teleporting to hell via a teleportation trap will no longer occur if the
character does not have fire resistance.

-- README file from the NetHack game

"Chris Ahlstrom" <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:rUKFk.58260$XB4.47407@bignews9.bellsouth.net...[color=blue]
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ignoramus26581 belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>[color=green]
>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>>>
>>>>> Which apps?
>>>>
>>>> proprietary trading.
>>>
>>> But which apps?
>>>
>>> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?[/color]
>>
>> Mostly C++ and some perl.
>>
>> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
>> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
>> port)[/color]
>
> It takes a little effort to write code that runs on Linux and Windows,
> but I think it pays off in ways besides just having the same application
> available on your favorite platform(s). Your code also gets a good
> workout from the syntax checkers of more than one compiler. (This same
> effect occurs as your compiler(s) get upgrading, too).[/color]

Its quite easy with java, but its not something I would write a complex
program in.
OTH open office uses a lot of java and works well on a reasonably good
machine.

we did some very basic graphical stuff a few years ago (if you call 10 a
few) using the sun java environment and a C program running on a remote unix
box and it worked OK on unix and windows. Things can only have got better
since as the net libs are much better now..

On 2008-10-04, Chris Ahlstrom <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote:[color=blue]
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ignoramus26581 belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>[color=green]
>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>>>
>>>>> Which apps?
>>>>
>>>> proprietary trading.
>>>
>>> But which apps?
>>>
>>> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?[/color]
>>
>> Mostly C++ and some perl.
>>
>> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
>> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
>> port)[/color]
>
> It takes a little effort to write code that runs on Linux and Windows,
> but I think it pays off in ways besides just having the same application
> available on your favorite platform(s). Your code also gets a good
> workout from the syntax checkers of more than one compiler. (This same
> effect occurs as your compiler(s) get upgrading, too).[/color]

Yes. GCC is a much better compiler than Microsoft and pointed out a
lot of un-obvious mistakes to us over the years.
[color=blue]
> I had to lock into gcc/g++ 4.1 for our project because some of our
> cross-platform libraries and apps wouldn't build. I had a day off
> yesterday, to I used it to figure out what was wrong (mostly it was
> just that gcc/g++'s header-file cleanup exposed some developer's
> forgetting to include <memory> and <string.h> in some modules.
>
> And I also found that some developers didn't know how to declare an enum
> typedef, and both Visual C++ and the earlier gcc weren't calling them on
> it. Some also had functions that returned "const int" and such.
>
> Pretty minor, just irritating to an anal-retentive coder like me.
>
> Back to the cross-platform stuff. I found it was possible
> (though not at all trivial) to wrap up the ALSA library and one of the
> Windows audio models in a callback-based class, to play audio files.
>
> Threads were actually a bit difficult, but the pthreads_w32 library now
> looks like the way to go (to me, anyway).
>
> GUIs have been cross-platform for a long time.
>
> As you note, you have avoid the single-vendor trap up front. Sometimes
> you have to hound your developers about it. Microsoft is kind of
> sneaky, to my way of thinking, with the CLI/C++ stuff. Example:
>
> [url]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/05/cplusplus_cli/[/url]
>
> Stroustrop's take:
>
> [url]http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#CppCLI[/url]
>
> Moderated ranting:
>
> [url]http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_frm/thread/84253d37f970dd2b?q=C%2B%2B%2FCLI&hl=en&[/url]
>[/color]

Staying far away from everything Microsoft, is definitely helpful in
the long run. You are preaching to the choire here.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
[url]http://improve-usenet.org/[/url]

"Moshe Goldfarb." <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u4mly6duc1yy.12go6a0n04hgg$.dlg@40tude.net...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:33:42 -0500, Ignoramus26581 wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoramus31561@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>>>>>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>>>>>>>> higher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
>>>>>>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them
>>>>>>> learn Linux,
>>>>>>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with
>>>>>>> MS-Windows
>>>>>>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the
>>>>>>> above is
>>>>>>> the rule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation.
>>>>>>> Every app
>>>>>>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying
>>>>>>> like rats
>>>>>>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system!
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared
>>>>>>> to the MS
>>>>>>> Windows stuff all things told.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
>>>>>> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i
>>>>>
>>>>> Which apps?
>>>>
>>>> proprietary trading.
>>>
>>> But which apps?
>>>
>>> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Mostly C++ and some perl.
>>
>> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
>> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
>> port)[/color]
>
> So they are *proprietary but they are not proprietary*...
> Makes sense to me.....
> I think?????[/color]

Me thinks troll.

On 2008-10-04, Moshe Goldfarb. <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:33:42 -0500, Ignoramus26581 wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-10-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ignoramus26581 <ignoramus26581@NOSPAM.26581.invalid> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2008-10-04, Canuck57 <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ignoramus31561" <ignoramus31561@NOSPAM.31561.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A Microsoft-sponsored study cites "higher cost of Linux
>>>>>>>> administrators" as a factor why Linux "total cost of ownership" is
>>>>>>>> higher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Generally your average xNIX admin is smarter, works smarted. and has more
>>>>>>> education. Can manage a whole lot more machines at once with higher
>>>>>>> uptimes, less viruses and less patching. In fact, many of them learn Linux,
>>>>>>> then learn Microsoft and can do both. But this is rare with MS-Windows
>>>>>>> admins doing the opposite. Of course there are exceptions, but the above is
>>>>>>> the rule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However companies get into issues with MS-Windows proliferation. Every app
>>>>>>> gets it's own machine and soon it grows out of control multiplying like rats
>>>>>>> with too much food. With xNIX, put 2-3 or more on the same system! The
>>>>>>> efficiencies a smart xNIX admin gets make them look cheap compared to the MS
>>>>>>> Windows stuff all things told.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My company is doing the opposite, consolidating Windows server apps
>>>>>> from many windows machines to few Linux machines. Roughly 1:6 ratio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i
>>>>>
>>>>> Which apps?
>>>>
>>>> proprietary trading.
>>>
>>> But which apps?
>>>
>>> What are they written in that you can move them over so easily?
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Mostly C++ and some perl.
>>
>> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
>> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
>> port)[/color]
>
> So they are *proprietary but they are not proprietary*...
> Makes sense to me.....
> I think?????
>[/color]

our apps are proprietary

tools we use are not proprietary

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
[url]http://improve-usenet.org/[/url]

Canuck57 wrote:[color=blue]
> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote...[color=green]
>> Ignoramus26581 wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Mostly C++ and some perl.
>>>
>>> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
>>> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
>>> port)[/color]
>>
>> So they are *proprietary but they are not proprietary*... Makes sense
>> to me.....
>> I think?????[/color]
>
> Me thinks troll.[/color]

Bingo!

[url]http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/01/moshe-goldfarb-troll.html[/url]

--
HPT

alt.os.linux.ubuntu pruned; this isn't specifically
about Ubuntu. Followups reset.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christopher Hunter
<cehunter@invalid.inv>
wrote
on Sat, 04 Oct 2008 06:40:02 +0000
<6kodtnF8vub7U2@mid.individual.net>:[color=blue]
> Ignoramus26581 wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Mostly C++ and some perl.
>>
>> We did not use "MFC" and other proprietary crap. So they could run on
>> Windows or any Posix compliant platform (though it took some effort to
>> port)[/color]
>
> Windoze is /not/ POSIX compliant. It never was, and never can be.
>
> C.
>[/color]

One might have to qualify that carefully; the POSIX
specifications appear to have multiple versions (as does,
of course, Windows).

Windows does not support X without additional software;
I'm frankly curious as to what Microsoft's SFU brings to
the table in that area. One can always install Cygwin.

--
#191, [email]ewill3@earthlink.net[/email]
Murphy was an optimist.
** Posted from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url] **