Linux-Advocacy Digest #479, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Craig Kelley)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Stanislav Kogan)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Craig Kelley)
Re: Giving up on NT ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Stanislav Kogan)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Michael Wand)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Craig Kelley)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Mike)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Mike)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 21:34:43 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:52:31 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 2 Mar 2000 20:40:34 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shared code is certainly preferable but not necessary.
>
> It's not like we're talking about reimplementing OpenGL from
> scratch here.
The problem is that the absence of shared code makes life harder
for the user.
> Compared to the rest of the coding going on in
> some of the larger everything-and-the-kitchen-sink apps, a
> font print renderer is not such a huge burden.
You would need to re-write both the display and print parts, unless
you're willing to print at screen resolutions. In other words, you are
essentially suggesting that the developers replace the font handling
function of the X server in their applications. This is not only very
difficult ( especially if you want to maintain network transparency ),
it involves a lot of low level programming.
>>It has nothing to do with "font rendering subsystems". It's about matching
>>printer fonts to screen fonts. The main problem is that each application
>>has to do its own X11 font <-> outline/metric file mapping. Having every
>>application do this is hardly an acceptable answer.
>
> Whynot?
Because it makes life more difficult for developers and more difficult
for users.
We are already seeing this with Star Office, Applix and all that doing
fonts their own way.
Installing fonts on windows: Step 1: install the font. It's instantly
available for all applications.
Installing fonts on Linux:
Step 1: Install the fonts into an X server
Step 2: Install the fonts into ghostscript.
Step 3: Install the font into Star Office ( several steps in itself )
Step 4: Install into Applixware
do you get the picture ? This kind of thing makes life unnecessarily
difficult for users.
>>The users do not want to have to reinstall[1] all of their fonts every
>>time they install a new application. One would hope for some kind of
>>infrastructure to handle this sort of thing.
>
> That's more an application issue. The font paths and the fonts
> themselves are available to any application that cares to use
> them.
Bzzzt, wrong. What is the X11 function call that tells you where
the outline files and metrics are ? ( hint: "does not exist" )
How on earth can the fonts be available? ( Hint: the client
runs on machine A, the server runs on machine B. How does the client
get the font outline files that the font server uses ?
)
>>The font rendering issue is another problem in itself. Freetype renders
>>fonts just fine, the problem is in X. But I don't feel like explaining it
>>to you now.
>
> So? Until you have a 300dpi or 1200dpi display, it's all going to
> be just an approximation anyways. This is true even with the Win32
> truetype renderer.
I have no idea what you are getting at. Of course it's always an
approximation ( even if you have a 300dpi display, you can't get a
true outline ).
The problem with rendering is that anti-aliasing doesn't work on Linux/X
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Mar 2000 14:36:01 -0700
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:04:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 02:52:34 -0000, "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >>Something that several UNIXes have been doing for years.
> > >>Still, whilst you MS zealots continue to pay I guess NT might
> > >>catch up (although its taking its time).
> > >
> > >Linux is NOT UNIX...
> > >
> > >Linux always seems to be playing catch up in some form or another.
> >
> > If I ran 16 CPU's on my home machine I might be worried.
> >
> > HOWEVER, when it comes to desktop Unix, the commercial vendors
> > are the one's playing catchup.
>
> Eh ? When it comes to "desktop Unix" what commercial vendors are even
> bothering ?
Apple? :>
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Stanislav Kogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:44:00 -0500
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> > What will be the reply?
> > "Oh my, that proves NT is perfect, I will abandon BSD/Solaris for NT
> > immediately!" - Of course not. So, again, what is the point? Why does it
> > matter?
>
> What you cannot understand, apparently, is that with MS being
> unable/unwilling to switch Hotmail to NT, why should anyone else
> with comparable requirements do so? And why does MS-Marketing
> tell us: "SWIIIICH TOOOO NNNNN-TTTTTTeeeeee!!!"
Sometimes they use plain force on organizations, in order to switch them
to NT.
Example: their recent actions with some universities in US.
I'm sorry I can't post full information about it. (don't remeber the
URL). I'll post it later.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Mar 2000 14:42:16 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe it's with the new memory extensions that Intel
> provided. I believe that memory is now addressed with 36-bits.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's something like that, can someone provide
> a more definitive statement on it?
>
> NTFS, however has been able to address 2 exabytes since NT4.0,
> I'm not sure how they do that, though.
>
> I remember a Linvocate not believing me, saying it couldn't
> be done on 32-bit (since ext2 is limited to 2GB files), but
> files in NTFS can be as large as 2 Terrabytes (I believe, I'll
> have to review, that's just off the top of my head).
It's not that it *can't* be done, it's just that your performance will
decrease because of the constant bit arithmetic.
Ext2 suppports large files, it's the Linux VM subsystem on 32-bit
platforms that cannot[1].
--
[1] Actually, there are at least 2 different patches which will allow
you to use the 64-bit libc calls under 32-bit Linux.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:41:02 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89ml58$5b1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> > Sucks vs. mebbe sucks more, all in the context of users
> > that very likely don't care either way. Otherwise, they
> > would be running Linux or NT.
>
> GACK! NT also sucks. Try to get an NT to display more than 16 colors
> for its icons when it is in 256 color mode. Bottom line is, you can't.
One thing everyone seems to be missing in this little issue is *why the hell
would you run in 8 bit colour* ?
> As for speed. Basically there is very little. NT is slower the 95. I
> have an NT, 98, and 95 system side-by-side here at work. NT is the
> slowest hands down (they are all 400 Mhz systems). Talking to one of
> our guru's here, he 'splained that it has to do with the drivers - they
> are much more complex on NT than they are on 95. As a result they are
> slower.
I think your "expert" needs to reassess his knowledge. The performance is
going to be far more dependant on memory instead of CPU speed, as well.
> 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.
I suggest trying to write a CD in MacOS if you want to see the height of
"sluggishness".
Of course your Mac is probably stuffed to the gills with a couple of hundred
MB of RAM while the Windows systems limp along with 32.
> My manager is hyped up on W2K based on, literally, the hype. "If they
> can do this... if they can do that..." I have something novel to
> propose. Why doesn't MS sit down and for ONE year spend all of its time
> and effort on fixing the bugs and security leaks in the software they
> have already published.
What makes you think they don't already sit down and try to fix said bugs &
issues ?
> It starting to get to the point where you know
> they are lying because their mouths are open...
Any recent lies you'd care to document ?
------------------------------
From: Stanislav Kogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:52:35 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Just one amongst others." What others? Hotmail is a property owned by MS,
> yes. But, when someone buys property it does not always follow that they
> will then immediately take and strip it down to it's very core (OS and
> Application), rewrite it all over again and carry on. If they had wanted to
> do that, why not just build their own hotmail from the ground up? name
> recognition is the answer to that. So, why convert at all? Let's put it this
> way: Not everything that MS owns or has shares in runs Windows on every
> single screen - hotmail is not an exception either. Gates owns 51% of a
> naval shipyard, I'm sure there are non-windows computers in that operation
Oh, you bring up an interesting story. The Cruiser story. (or should we
call it "NT and division by zero"?)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Mar 2000 14:50:17 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
> On 2 Mar 2000 20:40:34 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:45:06 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >>On 2 Mar 2000 15:28:04 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>>The main problem with Linux apps is that you either can't (easily) add new
> >>>fonts, or it doesn't print the right fonts reliably. Try adding some TrueType
> >>>fonts and get them to display and print with Ted. This is not a problem
> >>>with each and every app, it's a problem with the way UNIX works.
> >>
> >> Actually this IS a problem with each and every app.
> >
> >No, it is not. You don't even understand the problem, yet you argue. This is
> >the kind of thing that should be implemented only once, not once in every
> >application, but once, period. The reason is that I only want to install fonts
> >once, not once into every application.
>
> Shared code is certainly preferable but not necessary.
Will you give this tired argument up already, Jedi?
You've been saying this for years now.
> It's not like we're talking about reimplementing OpenGL from
> scratch here. Compared to the rest of the coding going on in
> some of the larger everything-and-the-kitchen-sink apps, a
> font print renderer is not such a huge burden.
Then why has it proven so difficult.
Thankfully, the gnome-print people (who are talking with VA about
their spooling system) don't think this way.
> >> As monsterous
> >> as some apps are, a decent font rendering subsystem wouldn't be
> >> that much more of a burden.
> >
> >It has nothing to do with "font rendering subsystems". It's about matching
> >printer fonts to screen fonts. The main problem is that each application
> >has to do its own X11 font <-> outline/metric file mapping. Having every
> >application do this is hardly an acceptable answer.
>
> Whynot? There are certain classes of applications, even on
> Win32 or MacOS that constantly re-invent things that would
> typically be considered bits of the core API.
Hmmm, n applications times n printers = n^2 combinations.
Nice and simple. Yep.
> >The users do not want to have to reinstall[1] all of their fonts every
> >time they install a new application. One would hope for some kind of
> >infrastructure to handle this sort of thing.
>
> That's more an application issue. The font paths and the fonts
> themselves are available to any application that cares to use
> them.
Wow! Let me use your system.
I'd love to be able to use TeX, Type1 and TrueType fonts in all my
applications. It's just an "application issue" and not a big deal,
right? (wrong)
> >The font rendering issue is another problem in itself. Freetype renders
> >fonts just fine, the problem is in X. But I don't feel like explaining it
> >to you now.
>
> So? Until you have a 300dpi or 1200dpi display, it's all going to
> be just an approximation anyways. This is true even with the Win32
> truetype renderer.
But not true for MacOSX's renderer.
After all, why should we aspire to be like Windows anyway? :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 15:47:02 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
> How exactly have they subverted Kerberos? Please document.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/02/0958226&cid=127, by Jeremy
Allison of Samba fame. Be sure to read his reply to someone's "Can you link
to any hard data?"
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: 02 Mar 2000 22:14:50 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > -Use an external app-- provide a link to the file which the browser can
> hand
> > off to a viewer, or a line of text that says "Point Acme
> StreamingVideoViewer
> > at dracolisk400.example.net:4040"
>
> No different than using a plug-in.
At least, it provides a better separation of the content od the webpage
and the add-ons.
Michael
--
Looking for a good, interesting signature for work in various places
of the Usenet. English language required.
Please send applies to [EMAIL PROTECTED], including information about your
former work and your salary expectations.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:00:29 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What happens when X and svgalib access the same byte in video
> > ram at the same time?
> >
> > *CHOKE*
>
> Try hitting Alt-Tab while playing Rollercoaster Tycoon sometime.
Ok? What next?
If you're referring to a crash, I have not had that problem
with Rollercoaster Tycoon. However, I have heard of people having
problems like this, and it's usually due to a faulty driver.
For example, this happened to me with a faulty OpenGL driver for
nVidia's TNT2 Ultra in Win2K. When I would alt+tab out of
Quake3 (which is buggy in the first place), I would get all
kinds of hell, including a BSOD every now and then.
-Chad
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Mar 2000 15:01:48 -0700
Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:89mb1u$508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Can't quite tell which parts are satire and which are serious.
> > >
> > > I've heard reasonably good things about W2K's reliability as well, and
> > > hope those things prove to be correct, but I still won't purchase or
> > > recommend Microsoft software until Microsoft ceases and desists from
> > > unethical and/or criminal behavior (including but not limited to
> > > subverting formerly open standards such as Kerberos).
> >
> > How exactly have they subverted Kerberos? Please document.
>
> Do a search yourself.. its easy enough to find the info - OH i forgot you
> and Drestin cannot use a search engine :-)
Sure they can!
http://www.microsoft.com
Click on "search".
> Its offcourse not Kerberos they use, its Microsoft Kerberos++ so its
> not completely compatible with other implementations of Kerberos.. This is
> the so called Embrace & Extend policy in action.
Spot-on.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 22:06:20 GMT
Show me an x86 system with more than 4 processors please. Win2k doesn't
support Alpha or PPC therefore it can't run on more than 4 processors
right now.
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [deletia]
>
> > >Ouch! Looks like you missed the windows 2000 launch.
> > >You should head to MS and view the video of the event.
> > >You'll see a live demo where they fire up a 16 processor
> > >unisys box and run an application on it with 8 processors.
> > >Then
> >
> > That's interesting.
> >
> > The version of NT5 that was realeased then hasn't been
> > advertising that capability. Neither has the version
> > that will eventually be called 'Datacenter'.
>
> Yes, both of them have.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/
> default.asp
>
> (URL wrapped for readability, sorry)
>
> Windows 2000 server supports 4GB memory and 4 processors
>
> Windows 2000 Adv. Server supports 8GB and 8 processors
>
> Windows 2000 DC Server supporst 16GB (I believe?) and
> 32 processors
>
> > Not to mention those TPC/C benchmarks that are still being
> > done on 4-cpu boxes.
>
> What? Man, do you even try to review your statements for
> truth before you state them?
>
> That's completely wrong. The Compaq Proliant 8500 has
> 8 processors.
>
> 12 Compaq Proliant 8500s, 96 processors total.
>
> What's 96/12? Yes, that's right. 8.
>
> > A dog and pony show, or some docttored video doesn't
> > really prove anything.
>
> Heh... man, you guys really are something. I bet you
> watch X files because "it's so real life".
>
> -Chad
--
You say it's cool to be yourself,
but you want me to be like you
and that is not being myself
http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
--
Mac and Windows users, make some free cash:
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=HRK719
------------------------------
From: Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 22:07:57 GMT
I can't make Win2k crash, all I have to do is install a NT4 driver for
my cd burner!
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I know people who crash NT4 on a daily basis & NT5 on a weekly basis.
>
> That's a load of crap and you know it.
>
> Coming from a guy who can't do 96/12 and who doesn't even
> know the basic specs of the product, I find it hard to
> believe anything you claim is even remotely clost to the
> truth...
>
> > I personally have managed to make NT4 tank more often than I
> > install a new Linux kernel.
>
> Especially stupid stuff like this. What was it? NT4 SP0?
>
> -Chad
--
You say it's cool to be yourself,
but you want me to be like you
and that is not being myself
http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
--
Mac and Windows users, make some free cash:
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=HRK719
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
