Pardon me, but what does this have to do with Linux or the Linux Kernel?!?!
Post this on the usenet under advocacy, but please don't litter up the
kernel listserver with this.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hohensee" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 8:36 PM
Subject: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
>
> The two branches of the USA that pertain have now confirmed that Microsoft
> is a problem requiring an externally asserted solution, but the judicial
> branch has rejected the specific solution proposed by the executive
> branch. Three other proposed remedies are mentioned in the Washington Post
> today. One involves allowing developers access to Microsoft sourcecode
> equally. One involves allowing computer vendors to configure the Microsoft
> software as they see fit. The third involves unbundling software from the
> OS. Gates had stated, correctly, that the split of the company proposed by
> DOJ did not reflect any understanding of the software business. Looking at
> the three subsequent proposals, it appears to me that this problem is
> still searching for a solution. These three recent superficialities also
> do not appear to be the ideas of people who know how these things work.
> Meanwhile, Microsoft whole-heartedly engages in a depraved attack on the
> copyright rights of individuals, making it delightfully clear that the
> problem remains unsolved, and that Microsoft's general degradation of the
> computer world continues unabated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> HELLO???????
>
> ANY GEEKS IN HERE?
>
>
> ANY OF YOU TURKEYS GOOD WITH PROBLEM-SOLVING?
>
>
>
> My hastily concocted proposed solution remains at...
>
> ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/install/clienux/interim/amicus_curae
>
>
>
> WHERE'S YOURS?
>
> Rick Hohensee
> http://www.cLIeNUX.com Who do you want to piss off today?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
> Pardon me, but what does this have to do with Linux or the Linux Kernel?!?!
> Post this on the usenet under advocacy, but please don't litter up the
> kernel listserver with this.
What this has to do with Linux is that throughout the whole process
Microsoft has been putting Linux in the news, on the front page, and now
is the opportunity for the people who have been damaged by Microsoft, the
people that have very good reasons to be massively dissatisfied with
Windows, a set of people that the readers of this list exemplifies, have
an opportunity to speak on the matter in a helpful and substantive way
that will be of more benefit than any work directly on Linux itself can
be, to the computer world generally and to Linux.
Rick Hohensee
:; cLIeNUX /dev/tty3 11:09:49 /
:;d
ABOUT Linux boot floppy mounts temp
ABOUT.Linux NetBSD command guest owner
Cintpos README configure help source
GPL RIGHTS dev incoming subroutine
LGPL VVT.tar device log suite
:; cLIeNUX /dev/tty3 11:29:59 /
:;
On Sunday 01 July 2001 11:02, Rick Hohensee ignorantly blabbered:
> > Pardon me, but what does this have to do with Linux or the Linux
> > Kernel?!?! Post this on the usenet under advocacy, but please don't
> > litter up the kernel listserver with this.
>
> What this has to do with Linux is that throughout the whole process
> Microsoft has been putting Linux in the news, on the front page, and now
> is the opportunity for the people who have been damaged by Microsoft, the
> people that have very good reasons to be massively dissatisfied with
> Windows, a set of people that the readers of this list exemplifies, have
> an opportunity to speak on the matter in a helpful and substantive way
> that will be of more benefit than any work directly on Linux itself can
> be, to the computer world generally and to Linux.
I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not
dissatisfied with Windows. It has its uses, as do Linux (and NetBSD, and
Solaris, and the other operating systems I have installed at home). Frankly,
I don't have a problem with Microsoft. If I don't like their product, I'm
free to choose not to use it.
--
Regards,
Kurt Weber
[email protected]
On Sunday 01 July 2001 13:48, you wrote:
> Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
> > I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not
> > dissatisfied with Windows. It has its uses, as do Linux (and NetBSD, and
> > Solaris, and the other operating systems I have installed at home).
> > Frankly, I don't have a problem with Microsoft. If I don't like their
> > product, I'm free to choose not to use it.
>
> You do understand, don't you, that microsoft is
> working frantically to take that choice away from
> you? it's easy to sit back and say it doesn't affect
> you, til one day you realize that you can't connect
> to your ISP unless you are running windows xp.
>
> Then it hits you, and it's too late.
In that case, I have the following options:
1) Start my own ISP
2) Use Windows XP
3) Not use Windows XP and not be able to use my current ISP
4) Go to a different ISP
I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be killed
for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
--
Regards,
Kurt Weber
[email protected]
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
> In that case, I have the following options:
> 1) Start my own ISP
> 2) Use Windows XP
> 3) Not use Windows XP and not be able to use my current ISP
> 4) Go to a different ISP
>
> I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be killed
> for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
But these are false alternatives! "I'll give you a choice, I remove
either your right foot or your left arm. Your choice." The choice
of "neither" is not given. All I want is true alternatives. I
hope that one of those alternatives will be to opt out of the
coercive, advertising rich, commercial environment that is in
our future.
Regards,
Lew Wolfgang
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
>On Sunday 01 July 2001 13:48, you wrote:
>> Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
>> > I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not
>> > dissatisfied with Windows. It has its uses, as do Linux (and NetBSD, and
>> > Solaris, and the other operating systems I have installed at home).
>> > Frankly, I don't have a problem with Microsoft. If I don't like their
>> > product, I'm free to choose not to use it.
>>
>> You do understand, don't you, that microsoft is
>> working frantically to take that choice away from
>> you? it's easy to sit back and say it doesn't affect
>> you, til one day you realize that you can't connect
>> to your ISP unless you are running windows xp.
>>
>> Then it hits you, and it's too late.
>
>In that case, I have the following options:
>1) Start my own ISP
Only if the upstream provider doesn't require you to use windows.
>2) Use Windows XP
>3) Not use Windows XP and not be able to use my current ISP
>4) Go to a different ISP
You may not be able to find another. It took me a year. I gave up. I was
fortunate that Verio doesn't care what you have... though if you use
the dialup or basic dsl, MS is it, or no real support.
>I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be killed
>for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
No, but you might be forced out of a job.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
>>I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be killed
>>for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
>
>No, but you might be forced out of a job.
Apologies for the followup to a followup:
You might be if the life monitoring sensors in surgury suddenly need
to be "registered with MS, or ... will be shutdown..." ;-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
> > In that case, I have the following options:
> > 1) Start my own ISP
> > 2) Use Windows XP
> > 3) Not use Windows XP and not be able to use my current ISP
> > 4) Go to a different ISP
Argument.
> > I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I
> > won't be killed
> > for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
Argument.
> But these are false alternatives! "I'll give you a choice, I remove
> either your right foot or your left arm. Your choice."
Gun.
> The choice
> of "neither" is not given.
Gun.
> All I want is true alternatives. I
> hope that one of those alternatives will be to opt out of the
> coercive, advertising rich, commercial environment that is in
> our future.
Go ahead and opt out. The only one using or threatening force here seems to
be you.
DS
Jesse Pollard wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
>>
>>>I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be killed
>>>for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
>>>
>>No, but you might be forced out of a job.
>>
>
>Apologies for the followup to a followup:
>
>You might be if the life monitoring sensors in surgury suddenly need
>to be "registered with MS, or ... will be shutdown..." ;-)
>
Or a BSOD.
This seems to be meant as a joke, but I don't think it's all that unlikely.
I seem to recall that MS products cannot be used in aircraft control
rooms for this reason.
-b
--
: __o
: -\<,
: 0/ 0
-----------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Pollard" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; "Kurt Maxwell Weber" <[email protected]>; "J Sloan"
<[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
[snip]
> >In that case, I have the following options:
> >1) Start my own ISP
>
> Only if the upstream provider doesn't require you to use windows.
>
> >2) Use Windows XP
> >3) Not use Windows XP and not be able to use my current ISP
> >4) Go to a different ISP
>
> You may not be able to find another. It took me a year. I gave up. I was
> fortunate that Verio doesn't care what you have... though if you use
> the dialup or basic dsl, MS is it, or no real support.
>
> >I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be
killed
> >for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
>
> No, but you might be forced out of a job.
In one of the large metro areas in which I live, there are a LOT of ISPs
that do not require you to use Windows, but will not support you beyond the
IP layer if you don't. Use linux, install PPP with MS-CHAPv2 (with or
without MPPE) for your dialup connection and it works just fine on a
Winblows-only ISP. DSL or Cable, just acquire your actual IP settings
program a Linksys router/hub box and be done with it.
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
> This seems to be meant as a joke, but I don't think it's all that unlikely.
>
> I seem to recall that MS products cannot be used in aircraft control
> rooms for this reason.
It's not just MS. Aircraft control rooms (as well as nuclear power
plants, spacecraft mission control, etc.) require special certified
software to be used - it's not simply that they avoid MS, they avoid all
software that hasn't been blessed.
My understanding is that astronauts going up on the shuttle take turns
bringing a laptop computer so they have actual computing power available
to them. The shuttle computer is not adequate for many tasks because it
is something like 30 years old, but that's what they use because it is
certified. So somebody has to bring along a non-certified system in their
"personal effects" allowance to get real work done :}
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, William T Wilson wrote:
> My understanding is that astronauts going up on the shuttle take turns
> bringing a laptop computer so they have actual computing power available
> to them. The shuttle computer is not adequate for many tasks because it
> is something like 30 years old, but that's what they use because it is
> certified. So somebody has to bring along a non-certified system in their
> "personal effects" allowance to get real work done :}
No.. the laptops are certified too. Not all the software on them I think,
but the hardware is definitely restricted and often modified.
The shuttle computers are designed for ONE task -- flying the spacecraft.
They are not designed to read email or play quake3. FWIW I do not think
you would WANT the shuttle computers doing anything else - these are
specially designed hard realtime triple redundant systems quite different
from laptops.
FWIW if you read the public records of space station and shuttle logs,
it's downright scary how often m$ stuff causes big problems up there.
-Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "William T Wilson" <[email protected]>
To: "Ben Ford" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
>
> > This seems to be meant as a joke, but I don't think it's all that
unlikely.
> >
> > I seem to recall that MS products cannot be used in aircraft control
> > rooms for this reason.
>
> It's not just MS. Aircraft control rooms (as well as nuclear power
> plants, spacecraft mission control, etc.) require special certified
> software to be used - it's not simply that they avoid MS, they avoid all
> software that hasn't been blessed.
>
> My understanding is that astronauts going up on the shuttle take turns
> bringing a laptop computer so they have actual computing power available
> to them. The shuttle computer is not adequate for many tasks because it
> is something like 30 years old, but that's what they use because it is
> certified. So somebody has to bring along a non-certified system in their
> "personal effects" allowance to get real work done :}
>From what I've heard, NASA relies heavily on modified Linux.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, William T Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
> My understanding is that astronauts going up on the shuttle take turns
> bringing a laptop computer so they have actual computing power available
> to them.
actually the mission related laptops are thinkpads running win95...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213
the ISS also has some running solaris x86...
all sorts of other computers have flow as parts of payloads...
> The shuttle computer is not adequate for many tasks because it
> is something like 30 years old, but that's what they use because it is
> certified. So somebody has to bring along a non-certified system in their
> "personal effects" allowance to get real work done :}
avionics packages onboard the suttle have been significantly updated,
since first flight(understatement). atlantis was the first to fly with the
glass cockpit sometime in early 2000.
joelja
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli [email protected]
Academic User Services [email protected]
PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of
arms. Karl Marx -- Introduction to the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of
the right, 1843.
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:19:07 -0500 Mon, 2 Jul 01 12:25:43 BST, you
wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "William T Wilson" <[email protected]>
>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
>>
>> > This seems to be meant as a joke, but I don't think it's all that
>unlikely.
>> >
>> > I seem to recall that MS products cannot be used in aircraft control
>> > rooms for this reason.
>>
>> It's not just MS. Aircraft control rooms (as well as nuclear power
>> plants, spacecraft mission control, etc.) require special certified
>> software to be used - it's not simply that they avoid MS, they avoid all
>> software that hasn't been blessed.
>>
>> My understanding is that astronauts going up on the shuttle take turns
>> bringing a laptop computer so they have actual computing power available
>> to them. The shuttle computer is not adequate for many tasks because it
>> is something like 30 years old, but that's what they use because it is
>> certified. So somebody has to bring along a non-certified system in their
>> "personal effects" allowance to get real work done :}
>
>From what I've heard, NASA relies heavily on modified Linux.
Last time I was in Mission Control at JSC, some of the consoles I
looked at were very obviously X desktops. I didn't look closely enough
to identify them more specifically - I'll take a closer look next
month when I'm out there again...
James.
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 09:09:32PM -0400, William T Wilson wrote:
> It's not just MS. Aircraft control rooms (as well as nuclear power
> plants, spacecraft mission control, etc.) require special certified
> software to be used - it's not simply that they avoid MS, they avoid all
> software that hasn't been blessed.
Not true. The FAA is certifying NT in aircraft. See the message I just
sent.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
"Bill Gates is a white Persian cat and a monocle away from becoming another
James Bond villain."
"No Mr Bond, I expect you to upgrade." --Dennis Miller
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:53:25PM -0700, Ben Ford wrote:
> I seem to recall that MS products cannot be used in aircraft control
> rooms for this reason.
Your statement above is not necessarily true. By control rooms do you mean
control towers or in the aircraft themselves? Inside the aircraft itself
is obviously the more critical situation and NT is being used there so I
don't see why it wouldn't be used in the air traffic control system as
well whether it be in control towers, air route traffic control centers,
or wherever.
MS products are used in life-critical situations. First, there was the
USS Yorktown. But that was just a test situation.
Here is an NT system used in a real non-test and FAA certified situation.
It operates the primary flight instruments of a high-performance aircraft.
There are several certified aircraft using this unit. I can't remember the
others I've read about but this is the Lancair Columbia 400.
From http://www.avweb.com/articles/colum400/ :
>Stationary is the word until the system boots -- perhaps like the computer
>you're using to read this -- and the solid-state AHARS (attitude, heading
>and reference system) sensors orient. Of course, this slight delay (the
>avionics system uses an even more stable version of Microsoft's
>almost-bulletproof Windows NT) generally won't pose a problem during cold
>starts -- particularly cold-weather cold starts.
I gasped aloud when I read "almost-bulletproof Windows NT".
As a pilot who flies people into the clouds regularly (San Diego usually
has good weather but only after the marine layer clears) I can tell you
that a reliable attitude indicator (AI) is an absolute life-critical
necessity. Without one, you are in serious trouble. When inside a cloud
without visual reference to the ground all you see out the windows is
whiteness. It's like being on the inside of a giant white sphere with no
markings whatsoever. Or blackness if at night. If the attitude indicator
fails vertigo often sets in as you can't tell which way is up as your
brain, confused by the unnatural state of not having any visual reference
to the horizon, tells you incorrect things. You can't just drop a penny
and see which way it falls or hang a string from the ceiling and see which
way it hangs or look at the level of water in a glass to see what is
level. The aircraft will be turning steeply (left or right, you have no
way of knowing and banking the aircraft the wrong way will only make it
much worse very fast) which means it is being accelerated towards the
inside of the turn so the penny may fall straight down, the string may
hang straight, and the water in the glass might be level. Whatever these
things are doing, they won't be right. You will be descending very quickly
now since the lift of the steeply banked wings is being generated
horizontally instead of vertically, tightening the turn. This continues
until impact. You have absolutely no way to tell which way is up or which
way you are turning without a stable gyroscopic reference. It is my (and
every pilots) worst nightmare when flying in clouds or anytime the outside
horizon is not clearly visible.
Yes, there are instruments which can be used to derive attitude
information such as rate of turn, altimeter, vertical speed indicator,
etc. (assuming they aren't driven by the same crashed computer as the AI)
and this is standard procedure in the case of AI failure but it takes lots
of practice to be able to use them because the information they provide
you with is indirect and requires interpretation. Not an easy thing to do
when you know you are in serious trouble. Missouri Governer Mel Carnahan
was killed in a plane crash recently where the attitude indicator failed
and the pilot had to interpret the other instruments to get attitude info
and wasn't able to cut it. The article quoted above claims that this is a
special version of NT that really is stable...no we really mean it this
time! Why they don't make this especially stable version available to
consumers is beyond me...oh wait, I know why: because it's really just the
same code everyone runs on their servers and desktops! Fortunately, this
system only runs for a few hours at a time and gets shut down/rebooted
after every flight. It also runs only one application and never has any
new software installed or uninstalled. No network access either. That
should help a lot with reliability. I hope this thing doesn't have a hard
drive in it. The gyroscopic effects on the platter of a pitching aircraft
can't be good for the bearings. This equipment is so expensive that it is
expected to last many years, even decades. Who is going to support NT 20
years from now? This setup was approved and certified for use by the FAA.
I wonder if any software engineers looked at it? I'll have to find out
what criteria they use for certifying this sort of thing. It must use an
x86 processor too. I sure hope it has good cooling. I've already had one
avionics failure due to overheating (a cooling duct came loose behind the
instrument panel and I lost the whole radio stack so there was no way to
get clearances or anything) and I would really hate for it to happen in
instrument conditions!
I'm all for modernizing the cockpit with computers. Putting all of the
flight info onto a flat panel display is very useful. Some airplanes I've
flown are 30 years old with instruments that really look it.
Which leads me to wonder: Would I trust Linux in this situation?
More so than NT but I still don't know what my first choice would really
be given that death is a possibility if it fails at an inopportune time.
In three hours I depart for a flight over open ocean with potential
visibility restrictions (still need to get the weather briefing). I better
do a thorough preflight and make sure all inspections are current.
Wouldn't want to pull a Kennedy!
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
"Bill Gates is a white Persian cat and a monocle away from becoming another
James Bond villain."
"No Mr Bond, I expect you to upgrade." --Dennis Miller
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:53:25PM -0700, Ben Ford wrote:
> > I seem to recall that MS products cannot be used in aircraft control
> > rooms for this reason.
>
> Your statement above is not necessarily true. By control rooms do you mean
> control towers or in the aircraft themselves? Inside the aircraft itself
> is obviously the more critical situation and NT is being used there so I
> don't see why it wouldn't be used in the air traffic control system as
> well whether it be in control towers, air route traffic control centers,
> or wherever.
>
> MS products are used in life-critical situations. First, there was the
> USS Yorktown. But that was just a test situation.
>
> Here is an NT system used in a real non-test and FAA certified situation.
> It operates the primary flight instruments of a high-performance aircraft.
> There are several certified aircraft using this unit. I can't remember the
> others I've read about but this is the Lancair Columbia 400.
>
> From http://www.avweb.com/articles/colum400/ :
[SNIPPED most of the rest]
It's Windows/CE. It takes a few seconds to boot from NVRAM. It's used
in Honeywell Flight Directors (for the FP display). It's not like
it was life-critical, you still have (required) steam gages for
backup. It is probably more reliable than the mechanical backups
because, except for the bugs, it has no moving parts.
> Wouldn't want to pull a Kennedy!
Don't bet on it. I'm not a Kennedy supporter, but the "rich kid"
went to the best and most expensive flight school in America. He
had already passed the Instrument written exam. He had more flight
instruction than many ATPs and the instruction was modern which means
he seldom looked out the window (a pet peeve of mine), doing about
everything by reference to instruments.
FYI. The horizontal stabilizer was not with the airplane when
it was recovered; The damage was impact damage from hitting water
dead-nuts vertical; The loss of control occurred while leveling
off during a routine descent.
Regardless of what the politicians at the NTSB say, this looks
to me like the AC shed its tail, resulting in an unrecoverable
loss of control. Of course, what do I know. I'm only a commercial
pilot/Inst with a little over 3,000 hours over the past 30 years.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).
I was going to compile a list of innovations that could be
attributed to Microsoft. Once I realized that Ctrl-Alt-Del
was handled in the BIOS, I found that there aren't any.