Linux-Advocacy Digest #545, Volume #25 Tue, 7 Mar 00 15:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Darren Winsper)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Boudewijn Rempt)
Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown ("Gooba")
Re: Open Software Reliability ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (David T. Blake)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Drestin Black")
Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Giving up on NT (Michael Wand)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Michael Wand)
Re: Drestin Black = Village Idiot ("Drestin Black")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 8 Mar 2000 03:04:51 GMT
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:47:45 -0500, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please fix your line wrapping.
> You left out something real important such as MS's X-BOX console: Here's my full
>post:
So, MS decides to release a console, and the PC market is suddenly
gone? Get real.
> ----begin
> Not in the context of entertainment. PCs are really limited.
Oh really?
> You can do more with a PSX II than play games. It's a trojan horse
> device that is a DVD/CD player and web access device for obtaining
> digital content.
You can do that and more with a PC. True, viewing DVDs with them is
not the brightest idea in most cases, but there are exceptions.
> Microsoft is going to announce a Game Console based on Win9x/DirectX.
> The fat lady is singing and PC gaming is emulate/copy the titles in
> the more profitable console market.
The PC market is more profitable than the Mac market, but I don't see
the Mac disappearing anytime soon.
> PC game developers are NOT going to ignore Bill Gate's endorsement of consoles this
> Wednesday and they have already seen (in private) this MS console.
They're not going to suddenly drop the PC market because of it. In
fact, because it uses DirectX, it'll be easier to produce games for
both platforms, so the PC market stands to gain from this, not lose.
> The Fat Lady is
> singing because Bill Gates is standing behind console development.
That means nothing. As long as companies can profit from the PC, it'll
be around.
> > > There are some very
> > > similar games in the works for consoles including the DC.
> >
> > So now console gaming is emulate/copy the titles on the PC market eh?
>
> In some cases yes and in other cases you refuse to admit exist, PCs get console
>ports.
I don't refuse to admit it, you just said the PC was just a case of
cloning console games. I proved you wrong. I never said the PC didn't
get console ports.
> > > Also there are
> > > emulators literally that let a Mac and PC play PSX games.
> >
> > So? There are emulators which emulate BBC Micros.
>
> So more customers for PSX developers.
Not much more. It's just a case of "I have a PC, but really like, say,
Tekken 3, but don't want to fork out for a PSX."
> > > Well see more
> > > of these emulators and/or ports.
> >
> > Your point being?
>
> Get a console, save money.
ROTFMAO! A console can't do even a quarter of what I want to do.
> > > I will not deny pioneering work on PCs in fact let me add that there are
> > > very realistic simulators on UNIX workstations like SGI that predate the
> > > PC and I do believe DOOMs engine was engineered on NeXT. These neat
> > > technologies have migrated to the PC and to the console.
> >
> > What does that have to do with anything?
>
> Many leading, unique PC game technologies are really ports.
In a rather insignificant sense.
> > > The problem is that the Moores law
> >
> > With the recent battles between AMD and Intel, that law is becoming
> > outdated. (When did the 500MHz PIII come out? 1GHz Athlons are
> > here today).
>
> Oh sure, Moore's law is outdated.
Moore's law will be adjusted to 12 months in the near future, and I
imagine it will shrink further after that. Now AMD are kicking Intel's
ass, things are going to be quite different for a while.
> > > is catching up with the humans senses
> > > (as it did with stereophonic music) so the technology edge PCs once had is
> > > diminishing.
> >
> > I don't know about you, but I happen to think graphics engines still
> > have a loooong way to go.
>
> I disagree. The PSX II engine generates graphics very close to Toy Story 2.
And you think that is even close to becoming life-like? I bet you that
within this year, you will see at least as good, if not better, coming
to the PC.
> > > Also increased realism also means production costs are up
> > > ten fold (see Newsweek) and therefore demand larger markets than the PC
> > > can offer to recover costs.
> >
> > If the PC was not profitable, games would not be produced.
> ...
> And since the number of PC titles is diminsihing there is evidence PC development
> is not as profitable
Notice the "as" part. If the PC market cannot recover costs
> - or you could read some archived psots of mine with URLs
> directly documenting data which shows many PC titles are money losers.
I'm sure that half-baked crap like BoTF doesn't generate profit, but I
imagine nearly all really good PC games generate profit.
> > > In addition MSs next generation OS for PCs is Whistler and then Blackcomb
> > > pure Windows2000 corporate OS with all the baggage associated with running
> > > that large OS.
I'd better point out that the consumer versions of Windows 2000 will
not contain most of the corporate baggage. Also, once the uneeded crap
gets swapped out, it's hardly relevant.
> > Then use something else.
>
> Like La-La the non existant OS for PC game diehards.
There are more and more games available for Linux every day.
> > > This years new generation of game consoles have enough
> > > power and are so low cost and focused as entertainment devices that PCs
> > > have been overwhelmed.
> >
> > Bullshit. That was said about the SNES, the Playstation, the N64 and
> > the Dreamcast. The PC gaming market has been dying for nearly 10
> > (Perhaps more) years now according to games console advocates.
>
> Why is MS making a game console? I'm right.
MS will do anything to increase profit. Just because WinCE exists it
doesn't mean that the laptop market is about to dissapear.
> > > Finally the internet/network allows a console to
> > > act as a thin client, strong in graphical and multimedia, they are ideal
> > > as a reliable, low cost access device for a wealth of media and content
> > > that can be cached locally but is maintained and sold by a service
> > > provider.
> >
> > A quick look at my games collection reveals titles such as Homeworld,
> > Urban Assault, UT, Birth of the Federation, Tiberian Sun, Freespace and
> > soon Star Trek: Armada. Now, the games console simply cannot compete
> > in that area I'm afraid, and don't think I'm even close to alone in my
> > gaming taste.
>
> This year's consoles will indeed come close and surpase many top PC titles in fun,
> technology and profitability.
Name them. I have yet to hear about console titles to excel those
games. And even when they do, better games will be out. Hell, there's
nothing available on the console to rival even Stars!, a game so old it
was designed to run on the 386 with 4MB RAM.
> > The games console is still too limited to come close to replacing my
> > PC, or most of my friends. Sure PCs and their OSes are complex, but
> > with that complexity comes flexibility, which far too many people can't
> > do without.
>
> Hey - there will always be a niche but it's a niche.
A niche? I see stores like Game, Virgin and HMV dedicating at least as
much shelf space for PC games as console games, in some cases (Like
Game) more.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
"Microsoft is estimating that 28,000 of these [bugs] are likely to be 'real'
problems [in Windows2000]."
-http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Boudewijn Rempt)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 7 Mar 2000 19:06:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<...>
> You'd want to check the license to make sure you aren't doing anything
> illegal. It might be worth it. They probably don't have any hinting,
> and for onscreen display, this is probably the most desirable feature --
> though I'm not sure how well the rasteriser will take advantage of it
> if it was added.
That's another point - I know about fonts, I know about Python, but
I don't know a lot of C, so I can't check whether the rasterizer would
actually honour hinting - does anyone know?
> Another suggestion, if you're interested in playing with fonts -- TeX
> has an exceptional family of fonts called "computer modern". I believe
> these even ship in Type1 format ( the originals are in metafont ), though
> I can't find the afm files ( maybe they're on ctan somewhere ).
For my own use, I'm quite satisfied with the Lucida bitmap family, with
an occasional foray into Lucida Unicode when I need phonetic character.
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
------------------------------
From: "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 19:14:37 GMT
Thankee sai, SOMEONE got the point.
"George Richard Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 3 Mar 2000 20:34:39 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [minor snippage]
> >On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 06:04:53 GMT, Gooba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >As your a previously unseen, anonymous poster, I urge any readers to
consider
> >the fact that you have no established credibility at all, "Gooba".
>
> Noone on cola does, bar those in the credits files of major OS components.
>
> >> That's all. Linux is
> >>notoriously choosy about what stuff is supported.
> >Bullshit.
>
> Replace Linux with Xfree86, and its true. Its also true for certain things
> like printers using ghostscript, parallel port devices, anything not
likely
> to be found on server class hardware.
>
> >> Linux is competing with Windows.
> >No its not.
>
> In certain areas, any OS on compatible hardware are competing. You can
only run
> one at a time, bar VMware or IBM's virtualisation on mainframes.
>
> >> It may not
> >>be agressively competing with Windows, but it is competing. A giraffe
and an
> >>elephant compete for the same waterhole, how often do you see them
fight?
> >Linux and Windows aren't competing for anything.
>
> Mindshare, developer time, end users attention, third party vendor
support,
> driver support, etc....
>
> >> Having to code new drivers for yourself?
> >Sure
> >> Reverse engineer or
> >If needed, np.
>
> Want to write one for either my printer or scanner? Its only been several
years
> and its not be written yet.
>
> >>apply for licenses for every new piece of hardware?
> >No Free Software does NOT do deals with proprietary information owners.
> >If you had more than a passing introduction with it, you'd know that.
>
> Xfree86, obfuscated video driver code. Go look for it.
> Samba, whose sole purpose is to interoperate with the above owners
products.
>
> >> I think not, this is why
> >>Linux needs to compete, it needs a certain base number of
users/developers
> >>to remain a viable, modern OS.
> >Your totally, completely 100% *incorrect*.
>
> What, If everyone walks away, Linux will remain perpetually up to date and
> viable? Nup. Other people could make it so, but people still need to do
so.
>
> Without developers. adaptation ceases. Without users, who will become
> disatisfied enough to change something?
> >Hey thats your interpetration. Windows is about ***looks***, Free
software is
> >about doing, not looks.
>
> Enlightenment + imlibs code vs its appearance? It looks nice on screen.
>
> Windows is about money, free software about Idealism.
> Things get done for different reasons, still they get done.
>
> George Russell
> (Registered Linux User 61117)
> --
> One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
> Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
> Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
> The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:06:57 -0600
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> Frank Mayer wrote:
>
> > I wonder if someone could help me understand a claim that the development
> > paradigm for open source software in general (and for Linux in particular)
> > yields higher reliability, maintainability and stability.
>
> Not an answer, but additional thoughts on both sides of the question:
Additional thoughts since my last post...
o Delivery date is almost always an issue with software developed the traditional
way, but almost never an issue for OSS. It's hard to see how letting a date affect
the process could *ever* result in better product quality, but it's quite easy to
see how it could result in reduced quality.
o Similarly, repeat the above but substitute "labor costs" for "delivery date".
o Similar again is the fact that, apparently, marketing departments often have
more decision power over commercial software than software engineers do.
Of course, those kinds of things have nothing to do with engineering
methodologies, so they may be getting away from the paradigms you actually wanted
to compare; it is probably the OS operating environment as much as the OS
methodology that lends itself to success.
But IMO empirical evaluation is really the way to go. Look at what software
smells like a rose garden and what smells like the fertilizer, then try to
correlate what you see with the procedures used. I know a single anecdote isn't
worth much, but I can't resist mentioning: the only non-OS software that I use
regularly is Netscape, and the only software I swear at regularly is... Netscape.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 7 Mar 2000 18:47:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am 6 Mar 2000 01:30:50 GMT schrieb/wrote/a écrit
> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.development.apps:
>
> >The only inadequacy with X is that the font system doesn't support
> >anti-aliasing, ie "font smoothing".
>
> Can we expect any changes in Xfree86-4 or the next major release? I am
> still surprised about the quality of font presentation when working via
> telnet (Putty) from a windows box.
xfstt is available for all non-RedHat X systems as a drop in
replacement for the X font server. There is lots on it on
the web, including several web sites.
There is also Freetype which is a library that provides true
type support for many applications. Of cource, Apple is now
preparing to halt all TrueType font use in linux due to
the patents they hold on TrueType fonts.
Metafonts from TeX are actually better in theory (and more
computationally advanced) than TrueType fonts, but they require
more computational power to render. However, xdvi viewers
tend to look pretty sweet while displaying text in X.
It will come around. If Apple were to licence TrueType patents to
XFree86 than it would come around a lot faster.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:25:02 -0500
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:44:22 -0500,
> Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> : How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be
> >useless,
> >> : I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
> >> : on two screens really provide?
> >>
> >> Oh wait, why would you need Multi-Monitor Support on any system except
for
> >> a multimedia system. Just another proof of Windows bells and whistles
> >> vs. Linux functionality.
> >>
> >
> >ahhh... feature envy denial... <grin>
> >
> >
> >
>
> Metro-X does multi monitor, next?
>
is that built-in or an add-in?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:26:40 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a3hae$2pgq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> > guess you are right, HP and Unisys only offer a 99.99% uptime with W2K -
I
> > guess we need to go a little further for that last 9, the five 9s.
>
> HP Offers more than that, in writing with HP/UX...
>
> Just thought id throw that out there...:)
better than five nines? I didn't think anyone does? HP/UX offers higher than
five nines?
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:32:17 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a3hhq$2pgq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > "[Linux] is not a robust enough platform."
>
> To run Office 2000? Come on dresden, even YOU know thats not true.
>
I think the issue is one of features rather than robustness, MS would have
to develop COM etc for LINUX just to have the infrastructure upon which to
port Word.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 07 Mar 2000 19:32:05 +0100
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > There are days when my system is literally crawling and all I have
> open
> > > > are 5 apps and several directories. Hell, I've had 10 apps open on my
> > > > Mac and have NEVER witnessed the kind of sluggishness I've seen in NT.
Did you ever experience W2k on a 486?
> Why? An OS with lots of features will require more RAM. If you want to be
> stuck in the 1990's, run a IBM PC with 640K of RAM... DOS didn't take much
> memory at all and booted quite fast... of course, with very limited
> capabilities.
Linux proves that this is wrong. For the core OS features (multitasking,
hardware drivers, TCP/IP), you need ~8 MB, for the GUI, 16 MB.
BTW, I can boot a working Linux, offering quite the same capabilities as
DOS, in the same time I boot DOS.
> > Linux and BeOS can run in 16mb of ram and comfortably in 32mb.
>
> So what! My HP calculator runs with much less RAM that that! And the
> commodore 64 only required 20K!! Does that mean they have better OSes?
If the OSs have the same features...
Michael
--
Die Gesellschaft ist ein Schmelztiegel, und der Abschaum schwimmt oben.
(Nach Terry Pratchett)
------------------------------
From: Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.app
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 07 Mar 2000 19:14:35 +0100
"Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2D/3D performance sucks (on XFree86 3.3 series anyway)
Don't know.
> Copy, paste works only half the time.
Depends on the programs.
> Drag and drop, forget about it.
Depends on the programs.
> Xserver traffic making scroll, resizing slow for big apps.
Can you prove this with apps other than Netscape?
> Resolution change requires Xserver restart.
That's either wrong or a lie.
Michael
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.troll,alt.linux,alt.intel
Subject: Re: Drestin Black = Village Idiot
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:54:14 -0500
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> CW wrote:
>
> > Drestin Black = Village Idiot
> >
> > Can't see the future, can you ???
> >
> > LAY off the bottle and get off of your sister...
>
> And dress in another color now and then.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
<grin> I just liked the handle - I borrowed it from someone else.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 7 Mar 2000 20:09:00 GMT
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Metro-X does multi monitor, next?
>>
> is that built-in or an add-in?
Once again, from the top:
With linux, everything is an add-on, except the kernel.
Therefore, if you are running xwindows at all, you are running an
add-on (technically).
Metro-X isnt the only Xserver that offers multihead support. It
just happens to be one of the ones that costs money.
If you can wrench yourself out of the windows mindset for a couple
of seconds and consider the possibility that an operating system
need not have a thoroughly integrated GUI, you'll understand whats
going on here.
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
******************************
