Linux-Advocacy Digest #451, Volume #25 Wed, 1 Mar 00 01:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (The Ghost
In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (The Ghost In The Machine)
Test (hcg)
Re: Giving up on NT (ZnU)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Joe Ragosta)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (5X3)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 04:15:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:14:11 +0000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>George Richard Russell wrote:
>
>
[snip]
>
>>
>> Its just bad design practice for GUI apps to force the use of the mouse.
>>
>
>Then blame X
I don't see how that helps either way; a competent widget set
would allow for both the use of the mouse, and for keyboard
accelerators. Windows was (and possibly still is!) very good
at ensuring that a user can, in most cases, use the keyboard
in order to traverse dialog boxes, and that's primarily,
IMO, because of its "widget set" (although it's buried so
deep in the Win32 stuff one can't really identify it easily
as such :-) ).
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 04:23:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 29 Feb 2000 21:21:22 GMT <89hd8i$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> If the company was truly interested in making the customer happy, as you
>>> state, the company would have produced a stable OS in the mid 90s. Your
>>> argument is moot. Shooo, troll, shooo...
>
>> First, I'm not a troll, I didn't start this thread.
>
>> Secondly, what it had in the mid 90s was a decent OS that the customer
>> liked and used to get their job done.
>
>Actually, I remember myself and nearly everyone I knew passionately
>hating windows in the mid ninties.
Personally, I tolerate windows. Barely. I'll admit, it's useful.
But then, so is a root canal, for certain things. (And yes,
I've had one. :-) )
However, active hatred, IMO, is rather unproductive. One's probably
better off doing something constructive -- one could, in
theory, replace one's home system with linux (I dualboot,
mostly because Win95 is good for games -- and that's about all
it's good for :-) Oh, and income taxes. At least, until WinE
gets good enough to run Kiplinger's stuff.)
Dunno how one can convince big commodity software sellers to switch
platforms; it may take a few years. But one can always hope.
(And then there's the small offices, who have their own dynamics --
and inertia. How does one convince an entrenched NT installation
that Linux is in fact better?)
No, I don't hate windows. I don't even hate Microsoft. I feel
sorry for just about everyone -- including myself -- who has to
use them, though, and I hope that this can change. I'm not sure
how, at this point, but it does appear that Linux is gaining
momentum.
I just hope Win2K doesn't derail it too badly. (Personally, I
see a lot of companies waiting to use it -- the first bugpatch
will be out in June, apparently, and they won't install it until then.
Good for them. :-) )
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NT. What an operating system might become if it
gets too much money.
Linux. What an operating system should be! :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 04:42:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 29 Feb 2000 16:27:22 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:45:53 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>nospam> wrote:
>>
>>Lies? Pooky? Lies? You and MiG are the only liars around - how about helping
>>MiG in proclaiming that NT is not a multiuser OS (he doesn't even know the
>>definition) or are you at least smart enough to fail in that claim too.
>
>NT is a multiuser OS in the same sense that DOS is an OS at all.
>Technically it's multiuser, but single-user assumptions are buried
>throughout the code, and they have caused problems in multiuser
>environments and they will continue to do so.
The only thing that's not multiuser about NT, IMO, is the console.
And that's a very small thing. Everything else about NT, as
far as I can tell anyway, shows that it is in fact ready for
multiuser and server use.
How *good* (as in reliable) it might be is a different question
altogether, but it is a multiuser server.
Contrast it with e.g., the Amiga, which was a fully multitasking
computer complete with networking capabilities, but has/had no concept
at all about different owners of files (although it does have read,
write, and execute privileges, as well as a few others). The Amiga
would make a very bad multiuser server. Similarly for MacOS (AFAIK)
and good old DOS.
NT makes a fairly good multiuser server (although Linux and its
Unix brethren make better ones :-) ).
The only NT "assumptions" I know about are things such as programs
installing into C:\WINNT, or something; is this what you meant?
I'm curious as to what some of these assumptions are.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:59:38 +1000
proculous wrote:
>
> windows rulez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> linux blowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!
>
'S' is back. Fool.
IanP
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 04:55:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 29 Feb 2000 16:33:34 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:19:48 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@lexi.
>athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote on 28 Feb 2000 17:50:07 GMT
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:59:16 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The design still supports it.
>>>
>>>Fat lot of good that does for the consumer.
>>
>>Most consumers are going to be on x86 equipment.
>
>Well, I mean a broader definition of consumer, one that includes anyone
>who's running Windows. I agree that in the short term, x86 would be
>more attractive for almost any application of Windows, but in the long
>term, Microsoft *and* its customers could benefit greatly if MS nurtured
>an alternative processor to the point where it could achieve economy of
>scale comparable to Intel's.
I suppose one could try to include the embedded market, with all
of its desktop organizers, cell phones, beepers, and dictionaries.
I was under the impression WinCE was trying to do something there
(and not doing all that well).
Or one could go after the game console market (WinCE isn't doing
all that well there, either :-) ).
But, at least for the short term IMO, when one says "home computer",
one usually thinks "x86-based PCI platform", methinks. This
might change if a sufficiently large consortium of big-endian
hardware manufacturers (Sun, HP, I think IBM, Motorola, and
others) decide otherwise -- I suspect they're already using
PCI busses internally, anyway.
Or perhaps Nintendo or Sega could make an add-on that turns the
console machine into a full-fledged Internet-ready computing
device, complete with optional development environment (something
along the lines of the old Atari 400, 800, 1200 series, although
far less limited). Dunno how difficult that would be; conceptually,
it wouldn't be hard, although it depends on whether they cheaped
out on their video interface or not. I don't own one, so don't know.
(HDTV-capable game consoles would probably make it simple, though,
as the resolution is far higher.)
Unfortunately, ACE was a bit of a flop, back in the late 80's
(or was it early 90's?). I for one would think the manufacturers
are slightly gun-shy about trying again, although I could
be wrong.
Transmeta could be an interesting wildcard, as well; their chip,
AFAIK, promises compatibility with x86 as well as others, and
very low power consumption -- ideal for mobile/embedded apps.
Don't otherwise know enough about it to make an informed guess,
though.
As for Microsoft nurturing an alternative processor -- I just
don't know. It's possible that MS and Intel might get
unhappy with each other (and I have seen signs of strain in the
past), but Microsoft is kind of stuck right now, methinks.
Unless NT's "HAL" is far better than I think it is. :-)
About the only possibility I see is MS buying Cyrix (if they're
still around), or AMD, and tailoring their product -- or some
of their products, probably the splashier, sexier, video-oriented-and-
easily-demoable ones, to their chip(s). But those are still x86 clones.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "I'm sorry, Bill. I'm afraid I can't do that."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 05:06:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 29 Feb 2000 23:22:44 GMT <89hkc4$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> SFP has NOTHING to do with the problem . NO system files are
>> overwritten or corrupted. There is no DLL hell. SFP does NOT
>> apply. What DOES apply is that Symantec, in version 8 had code
>> in their video takeover that performed big no-nos in the new
>> W2K driver model (that and some more goofs in their symevnt
>> libraries (yes, again)). Again, all Symantec's fault. AND,
>> they did patch 8 and version 9 does not have these problems.
>
>A stable operating system does not allow a *driver* to break it utterly.
>
>See openbsd, openstep, VMS, MVS, and inferno/purgatory for details.
I'll admit, I'm curious as to what space Linux loadable modules
run in (ring 0? ring 3? something in between?); presumably,
if one does a null pointer dereference, or, worse, a known
*bad* pointer dereference, it's kernel panic time,
game over, you lose, put another quarter in the junk box... :-)
However, I'll also admit I know next to nothing as to what
I'm talking about. :-) Linux is not a simple beast, when it
comes to file system operations (the bit of the kernel that
I *have* briefly glanced at), especially with SCSI flitting
about in there. It's definitely multilevel, and I'm not sure
how clearly delimited the levels are either, at this point.
I suspect drivers may be similarly twisted, although it's
mostly the nature of the beast. (The driver can't wait around
for something to happen; somebody else might need to start running.
There's also the issue of what happens if hardware throws an
interrupt.)
Of course, with luck, the driver merely breaks what it's driving;
a bad sound driver, e.g., might lock up the sound board but not
the rest of the system. But I for one wouldn't really want to
depend on such benevolence.
>
>p0ok
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: hcg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Test
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 05:07:35 GMT
Test
--
hcg
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 05:22:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:26:17 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> HDTV+Playstation3 will be the thing to beat for PC's and Macs. That
> >> combo will be sooooo fast and gorgeous.
> >
> >By the time the PS3 + HDTV + network connects + everything else that
> >makes a
> >PC a PC, you are going to be spending more money on that system than a
> >PC!
>
> Perhaps, however the PSX screen will still be several times
> larger. You can get a 60" projection TV for what some of the
> better ~ 20" CRT tubes will cost you.
Not an HDTV though. HDTVs are absurdly priced at the moment.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 05:46:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hobbyist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
> > > Of course, the thing is, they didn't need to charge for IE, because
> > > they
> > > use IE in many different applications for many different things.
> > > Having
> > > a robust application like IE allows them to get many miles out it.
> > > They
> > > save so much time by using what IE already has, or by only having to
> > > make
> > > minor modifications (as opposed to designing a whole new type of
> > > interface)
> > > that they save time and money. IE pays for itself several times
> > > over.
> > >
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > Total, unadulterated nonsense.
>
> That's myopic. Stop thinking of direct charges for services.
> In a corporation as large as Microsoft where the success of a product
> depends so much on that of many other factors, it doesn't take a
> genius to fathom how the money spent to develop IE is easily covered
> by the benefits accrued through giving it away for 'free'.
>
> This isn't more commonly done simply because not many
> companies have the sort of capital it takes to pump money into such a
> venture to reap indirect rewards.
>
> Giving free licenses for personal non-profit use of software
> is a less costly way of incurring the same sort of benefits that
> Microsoft is aiming for with IE. PUBLICITY. Increased USERSHIP.
> Expanding the USERBASE. Everyone is using the damn thing. Think of the
> power MS has. The lovers of free stuff don't even realise they're
> caught. The problem is that MS is such a wealthy company that they're
> able to give away quality for free. There's no doubt that IE is
> quality software.
>
> > MSIE cost Microsoft a lot. It seems to be a major factor in
> > introducing
> > instabilities into the system. Yet they give it away.
>
> Myopic, myopic. Are you a businessman. I'm not and even I
> can see the sensibility in it.
Of course I'm a business man. My current business is returning about
100% return on capital and record profit levels. More money than you'll
ever dream about, anyway.
As for your "sense", you're completely ignoring the thread. MSIE costs
MS money. Even a dolt ought to see that. Yet they give it away for free.
So, the poster who I was responding to (who claimed that MS only did
things that generated profit) was clearly wrong.
Whether there is a good reason for it (or whether it's legal at all) is
beside the point.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 29 Feb 2000 23:55:04 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Please note that I am not denying the bug is in pcAnywhere.
>> Symantec has admitted to the problem and they have a fix.
>
>Thank you.
>
>>
>> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
>> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
>> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
>> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
>> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
>> Protection" does for me.
>
>Then you have been misinformed.
Why is it necessary for a remote control application that does
not drive a real device to install something at the device
driver level anyway? Compare to the VNC server on a unix
system which simply provides an additional X server as a
frame buffer accessed by the client(s) over a network. No
new device-level drivers necessary.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 1 Mar 2000 06:04:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89hjmb$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Lets bang the drums instead for AMD because theyre better chips than
> pentiums:
>>
>> AMDK7--->bogomips=2*mhz
>> pentiumIII--->bogomips=1*mhz
>>
>> An AMD K7 850 would then rate 1700 bogomips while a PIII 850 would be 850
> bogomips.
>>
>> While "bogomips" is not a very useful benchmark for nearly any kind of
>> real world application, a chip architecture which offers double that of
> its
>> competitor obviously has alot going for it.
> BogoMIPS isn't a useful benchmark for comparing *anything* except identical
> CPUs at different clock speeds. IIRC it's simply a measure of how many
> noops a CPU can execute in a given time (or something similar - slightly
> dependant on CPU I think). So an Athlon is better because it can do
> absolutely nothing twice as fast a pII ;).
It can handle twice as many loops in a single chronological frame as
a PIII, which when extrapolated to real world applications means almost
nothing, but when comparing processor *architecture* and efficiency
means quite alot.
I purposely didnt get into G4s and proposed G5s, because although they
absolutely blow away *all* x86 architectures, they will not run both
windows and linux, which are the things that are the crux of this
argument.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 1 Mar 2000 06:06:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89hk8p$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
>> >> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
>> >> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
>> >> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
>> >> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
>> >> Protection" does for me.
>>
>> > Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
>> > as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
>> > there's no system files to protect.
>>
>> Then how in the world does it crash such an advanced operating
>> system?
>>
> Similar to how X can hang Linux requiring a hard reboot?
See, everyone keeps saying this and I actually have never once
seen this happen.
Sure, ive seen X lock up (especially under MKlinux, DR2) but the
system was always recoverable via telnet or ssh.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 1 Mar 2000 06:06:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89hk8p$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
>> >> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
>> >> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
>> >> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
>> >> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
>> >> Protection" does for me.
>>
>> > Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
>> > as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
>> > there's no system files to protect.
>>
>> Then how in the world does it crash such an advanced operating
>> system?
> Because, <drumroll> drivers can crash OSes.
They can crash *alot* of operating systems, but they cannot
crash all of them.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 1 Mar 2000 06:08:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89hkc4$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> > SFP has NOTHING to do with the problem . NO system files are overwritten
> or
>> > corrupted. There is no DLL hell. SFP does NOT apply. What DOES apply is
> that
>> > Symantec, in version 8 had code in their video takeover that performed
> big
>> > no-nos in the new W2K driver model (that and some more goofs in their
>> > symevnt libraries (yes, again)). Again, all Symantec's fault. AND, they
> did
>> > patch 8 and version 9 does not have these problems.
>>
>> A stable operating system does not allow a *driver* to break it utterly.
>>
>> See openbsd, openstep, VMS, MVS, and inferno/purgatory for details.
> With the exception of inferno (which I know very little about). Bad drivers
> can take down any of those OS's. Tell me, how exactly does the OS swap to
> disk if the disk drivers crash?
MVS and VMS can dynamically "swap" swap into any device it can see. (including
memory space which has been loaned to a virtual machine You
dont need functional disks, fantastically enough. You are probably correct
regarding openbsd and openstep however, I did not take into consideration
disk drivers.
p0ok
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
