On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:00:56 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 06:36:07 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

Jethro wrote:

You're thinking of UEFI (whatever that means) which is an industry
initiative to prevent malware and root kits. The idea is that the PC
BIOS will only boot an OS which presents a valid crypto key (similar
to how SSL sites work).

UEFI by itself doesn't require that, this netbook already has UEFI and
has no crypto options. The worry is that MS have said they will require
crypto for machines to have a nice "Designed for Windows 8" sticker.

So long as there's a method to disable the crypto, it'll still be
possible to install other operating systems, even better would be the
option to load whichever crypto key you choose. I suspect that enough
stink has been kicked-up that at least the former will happen.

I hope so. However Microsoft have a history of defending their monopoly
vigourously. Look at how few vendors will sell you a PC /without/
windows pre-installed.

A interesting quote sums this up:
"Experience indicates that many firmware vendors and OEMs are interested
in providing only the minimum of firmware functionality required for
their market, It's almost certainly the case that some systems will ship
with the option of disabling this. Equally, it's almost certainly the
case that some systems won't. It's probably not worth panicking yet. But
it is worth being concerned."

Personally, I would be more concerned that certain governments start
thinking "great, now we can mandate *exactly* what people are allowed to
run on their computer".

I don't like the idea of running "government approved" software.

On 03/11/2011 11:41, Jethro wrote:
but also, it will only run the "approved" version of Windows.

I can't imagine that happening. Microsoft usually bend over backwards to
ensure that their new OS runs on older hardware. Otherwise they would
miss out on a lot of OS upgrades.

On 03/11/2011 23:20, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Rick Hughes wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
-septembe
r.org...
"Rick Hughes" wrote:
[snip]

No, that's absolute ********.



I disagree ...

Everyone is permitted to be wrong.

As someone who used Macs during that time they were slow ... very slow,

Define "that time". The Mac was faster, much faster than the IBM PC and
PC XT that were its contemporaries.

but easy to learn and intuitive. when PC's came out with far more
processing power at a much reduced per unit cost ... Mac sales and
business use plummeted. (apart from some niche graphic useage)

That's a bizarre take on history.

The business went bust as far as MAC PC's concerned in mid 90's (not
sure
if that was when Jobs left)

No, it didn't go bust. It got close but it did not go bust.

... the iPhone turned it round in past 5 years
for sure.

No, what turned it around was the iMac and the iPod.

Interesting though Android has much higher market share than Iphone
.. and
that is by giving away away an open platform (Android) ... pattern
forming
here?

Yes, Android is crap but it's given away to manufacturers and they can't
have iOS. Does any one phone maker, other than Apple, have 20% of the
market?

That is a non answerable question since it includes a false proposition.
While apple have not got 20%, blackberry have got 22% in the UK.

Well Apple don't, they have about 15%.
Samsung has more, nokia has about the same.

Depends on the market... in the uk they have about 18% at the moment,
but in the US just under 10%.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 04/11/2011 07:48, dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
...

The OS is GPL, and that's what we're talking about.

Oh, I thought we were talking about making money from free software (and
linux, john).

We are. The OS is free software, and RH make a healthy amount of money
for it, and it's not about the non-GPL bits they put on.

The applications aren't.

You really don't understand what's going on here do you...

Well one of us doesn't.

I know. It's a bit strange when somebody who was presumably fairly
intelligent in a past life insists on being really insanely stupid in
the manner in which you do.

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 04/11/2011 07:48, dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
...

The OS is GPL, and that's what we're talking about.

Oh, I thought we were talking about making money from free software (and
linux, john).

We are. The OS is free software, and RH make a healthy amount of money for
it, and it's not about the non-GPL bits they put on.

The applications aren't.

You really don't understand what's going on here do you...

Well one of us doesn't.

I know. It's a bit strange when somebody who was presumably fairly
intelligent in a past life insists on being really insanely stupid in the
manner in which you do.

Its just a difference of opinion, I don't think they are making money by
selling free software, however you claim to be buying free software from
them.
I think its odd that you are prepared to pay for free software, even when
you can download it for free.
You get nothing for the payment as you say it doesn't include any support.
I find it hard to understand just what you are buying.
Maybe its the pretty box?

On 04/11/2011 18:42, dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 04/11/2011 07:48, dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
...

The OS is GPL, and that's what we're talking about.

Oh, I thought we were talking about making money from free software (and
linux, john).

We are. The OS is free software, and RH make a healthy amount of money
for it, and it's not about the non-GPL bits they put on.

The applications aren't.

You really don't understand what's going on here do you...

Well one of us doesn't.

I know. It's a bit strange when somebody who was presumably fairly
intelligent in a past life insists on being really insanely stupid in
the manner in which you do.

Its just a difference of opinion, I don't think they are making money by
selling free software, however you claim to be buying free software from
them.

No, it's you not understanding what's going on.

I think its odd that you are prepared to pay for free software, even
when you can download it for free.

And you've let that feeling blind you to other possibilities.

You get nothing for the payment as you say it doesn't include any support.

That's not true. We get a well defined system.

I find it hard to understand just what you are buying.
Maybe its the pretty box?

We don't get any box at all.

I've explained it once already, but you've not made any effort to
understand it.

We pay money for free software. We don't need support for that software
- it mostly just works.

Once we have a box with that free software on it, it's time to do
something with it. We pay somebody else for some application software.
They say "If you want us to support you using this software we're
selling you, you have to use it on OS X, Y, Z - and that includes our
paid-for free software.

They do this because they don't want the hassle of having to support
every single custom linux distribution. RHEL makes it easy for them -
they get their own copy of it, test their software on it, and when we
report a problem, they can try it out on their version.

If we're running an install which they've not certified, they can't do
that so tell us to bugger off.

That's why we pay money for free software with no support bar patch
provision. RH make quite a lot of money that way.

On Nov 3, 11:02 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Rick Hughes wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
-septembe
r.org...
"Rick Hughes" wrote:
[snip]

No, that's absolute ********.

I disagree ...

Everyone is permitted to be wrong.

!!?
the *real* test is whether one can put one's hand up and admit
it.........

Jim K

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 01/11/2011 23:42, Rick Hughes wrote:

So the servers were cheap enough, £400 will buy you a decent HP proliant.
Then you start adding all the software (£890 for windows, £85 for every
extra five users over 5 for CALs, £525 for every five Terminal
Server/Remote Desktop CALs, and another £1300 if you want a decent backup
application for the pair of them... that's before you pay someone to
configure it all, install it, and add VAT).




Interesting point, just spent a couple of days at a Global Investment back
on company business ... they like most commercial businesses have windows
PC's on every desk.
My companies product sits in their server room, and as most of out product
is now on HP boxes, running Linux Redhat .... this is an issue, as the
standard for the bank in now Windows Servers ...... they will not entertain
any support for Linux.
As they won't buy a Linux box, we have to supply box & app as an
'application' ......... just showing as an example the the whole world is
not ditching Windows, and not everyone is happy with Linux.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:05:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

well I cant say really..CP/M in 1981, MSDOS about 1985, VMS 1985, Unix
1987 or so...Venix, SCO unix, Sunows 4, Sun Solaris, SySV unix, all
flavours of windows from 3.1 to XP at which point I gave up..Linux

A latecomer to UNIX, then....!


I must be a real Newbie doing my SysAdmin course in 1995

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:33:22 +0000, Rick Hughes wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:05:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

well I cant say really..CP/M in 1981, MSDOS about 1985, VMS 1985, Unix
1987 or so...Venix, SCO unix, Sunows 4, Sun Solaris, SySV unix, all
flavours of windows from 3.1 to XP at which point I gave up..Linux

A latecomer to UNIX, then....!


I must be a real Newbie doing my SysAdmin course in 1995

Indeed. 20 years after I started using UNIX! .-)


--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
Rick Hughes wrote:

My companies product sits in their server room, and as most of out product
is now on HP boxes, running Linux Redhat .... this is an issue, as the
standard for the bank in now Windows Servers ...... they will not entertain
any support for Linux.
As they won't buy a Linux box, we have to supply box & app as an
'application' ......... just showing as an example the the whole world is
not ditching Windows, and not everyone is happy with Linux.


Unusual - at least for investment backs. Linux and Solaris are big there
usually, windows servers less so. IME.

From what I've heard, Solaris is now gaining against Linux again in that
world (where Linux is often Redhat in that market) as the banks like the
idea of one big (and I mean *big*) contracts with one company - Oracle.

Sadly, we are heading the other way. I love Solaris but...

Darren

On 9 Nov 2011 21:44:35 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-11-09, Rick Hughes wrote:

Interesting point, just spent a couple of days at a Global Investment back
on company business ... they like most commercial businesses have windows
PC's on every desk.
My companies product sits in their server room, and as most of out product
is now on HP boxes, running Linux Redhat .... this is an issue, as the
standard for the bank in now Windows Servers ...... they will not entertain
any support for Linux.

Most peculiar, since AFAIK every Bank in the world has data centres jammed
with Linux boxen.

Quite. And I write the software that runs on some of them.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On 09/11/2011 21:55, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:33:22 +0000, Rick Hughes wrote:

"Bob wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:05:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

well I cant say really..CP/M in 1981, MSDOS about 1985, VMS 1985, Unix
1987 or so...Venix, SCO unix, Sunows 4, Sun Solaris, SySV unix, all
flavours of windows from 3.1 to XP at which point I gave up..Linux

A latecomer to UNIX, then....!


I must be a real Newbie doing my SysAdmin course in 1995

Indeed. 20 years after I started using UNIX! .-)


... and 25 years after I had my first international person to person chat
using computers (IM?)

[Brentwood to Cologne - IBM 360s transferring files using BiSync with
operator to operator messages piggybacking on the transfer].

On 10/11/2011 16:27, Pete Shew wrote:
On 09/11/2011 21:55, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:33:22 +0000, Rick Hughes wrote:

"Bob wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:05:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

well I cant say really..CP/M in 1981, MSDOS about 1985, VMS 1985, Unix
1987 or so...Venix, SCO unix, Sunows 4, Sun Solaris, SySV unix, all
flavours of windows from 3.1 to XP at which point I gave up..Linux

A latecomer to UNIX, then....!


I must be a real Newbie doing my SysAdmin course in 1995

Indeed. 20 years after I started using UNIX! .-)


.. and 25 years after I had my first international person to person chat
using computers (IM?)

[Brentwood to Cologne - IBM 360s transferring files using BiSync with
operator to operator messages piggybacking on the transfer].

I still remember the novelty of a message exchange I had with someone on
a fidonet BBS, when I realised that the person I was corresponding with
was in the US... (prolly about 1989/90)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/