On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 13:05:27 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:09:35 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Local appliance maker snares Raytheon contract
>>>
>>> ,----[quote ]
>>>| Raytheon has deployed Opengear's Linux-based CM4000 console servers as the
>>>| standard console management system behind its AutoTrac III air traffic
>>>| technology.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=409505031&rid=-50
>>
>> No, Roy. Air Traffic is *NOT* being managed by Linux. This is serial port
>> console manager application. Basically, it's a server appliance that has a
>> network jack and provides plain old serial port consoles for administrators
>> and developers. This is *NOT* managing air traffic.
>>
>> Why do you feel it necessary to embellish and exagerate, and even outright
>> lie so much about Linux?
>
> Actually, you hit on a significant point here; what Raytheon are saying
> is that GUI-based management is simply not up to the job, and they need
> to use console-based management for the critical servers, because
> air-traffic control is so important.
No, Mark. That's not what the article says. It is used to adminster the
*SUN* workstations running *SOLARIS*. It's used because, for remote
administration, there is no need for graphics. This has nothing to do with
controlling the air traffic. Let me quote the article:
"Raytheon Engineering's Joseph Castellino said the company was looking for
a solution to manage its Sun servers and workstations - **ALL** of which
are running some version of Solaris." (emphasis mine).
"We prefer to use [the command line] for **CONFIGURATION** because we don't
always have graphics capabilities in place depending on [the] individual
configuration," Castellino said" (again, emphasis mine)
> Clearly, this is yet another application, mission and life critical, for
> which linux is ideal.
No, Mark. There is nothing mission or life critical about this. It
doesn't do *ANYTHING* related to air traffic control itself.
> There is no excuse for your anti-Roy abuse, though. Have you dug into
> anyone else's personal life recently, Erik?
I've never dug into anyones personal life, so I don't know what you're
referring to. If you're referring to Rex, be aware that he made that
information public on his own website and on newsgroups himself.
|
|