Linux-Advocacy Digest #513, Volume #25 Sun, 5 Mar 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
("Charles W. Swiger")
Re: BSD & Linux ("Ste")
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (George Marengo)
Re: Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE? (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (George
Marengo)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (George Marengo)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (George Marengo)
Re: BSD & Linux (Joe Abley)
Re: BSD & Linux (William Burrow)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (George Marengo)
Re: BSD & Linux (William Burrow)
Re: Drafting a brochure (Simon Wright)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Jim Richardson)
Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace" (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux is a lamer (Donn Miller)
Re: BSD & Linux (Bill Moran)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Darren Winsper)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Darren Winsper)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Michael Wand)
Re: BSD & Linux (Andy Newman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:08:36 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <89sgcu$dlr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen wrote:
>>But I'm not suggesting that Apple go with Linux ... I'm just explaining
>>why I think Apple's choice is less interesting than Linux ;-)
>
> If Mac OS X is anything like the (good) old NeXTSTEP internally then
> it makes much use of Mach's IPC facilities which don't really have a
> good replacement under other Unix or Unix-like systems.
The problem is actually that other systems implement many different
replacements which have different interfaces and tradeoffs, whereas Mach uses
Mach messaging for local and network IPC (ie, sockets, named pipes, Sun RPC,
etc), for shared memory, for process control and VM inheritence behaviors, and
so forth.
> The Linux atop Mach may have been an option but then again it may not
> have been.
I would argue that Linux is first and foremost the kernel. Sure, some other
layers like filesystems and the agglutination of libraries, headers, and
executables (call 'em RPM's, or Debian packages) also distinguish Linux from
any other Unix.
> There are places where the BSD 4.4 derived systems have
> better (kernel) behaviour than Linux systems (and vice versa of course)
I am quite familiar with both FreeBSD and Linux, and to a lesser extent
OpenBSD and NetBSD. Linux is oriented and tuned more for interactive usage,
whereas FreeBSD in particular excels at the server role.
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
From: "Ste" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:11:14 GMT
> I like FreeBSD better, because it is a descendent of the original BSD
> code. It seems like Linux' networking is not as good as FreeBSD's,
> because of its BSD TCP/IP stack heritage. Also, FreeBSD is better
> than Linux at football. If you pit the FreeBSD developers against the
> Linux developers, FreeBSD will dominate at football. Of course, I
> feel strongly that the Solaris team could beat both teams, because
> they're both pseudo unices compared to the excellent Solaris. They
> are unix wannabes because they run on Wintel machines.
>
> I went out to a ballpark one time, and I saw 2 teams, FreeBSD, and
> Linux. Linux scored a touchdown early, but FreeBSD's offensive line
> wore down Linux' defense. FreeBSD began to pile up a lot of yards on
> Linux. Then, one of the FreeBSD linebackers sacked Linus Torvalds,
> the Linux QB, and took him out of the game. FreeBSD won the game,
> 38-20. It was a blowout.
That's not football, thats the weird game Americans play like Rugby, except
Rugby
guys don't need all that padding.
Association Football (saarccer, to you 'murricans) is the 'Beautiful Game'
Solaris is Association Football
*BSD is Rugby Union
Linux is Rugby League
American Gridiron Football is Windows, all padding and razzamatazz
Yes I know I'm using outlook, but I could be using Solaris.
Ste
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:13:29 GMT
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:33:53 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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).
>
>someone should sue this guy for his continued criminal behaviour claims.
Has MS been found guilty of violations of state and/or federal
statues in the past? Are they now being investigated for same?
<hint: Sherman>
>of course, this Kerberos thing? MS just followed the standard and used a
>field that was left for exactly the purpose they needed. They followed the
>rules and obeyed the standards - too bad others can't read so well.
The issue is now: where's the RFC which documents what they did?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE?
Date: 05 Mar 2000 19:15:01 GMT
> Anyone that
>would argue otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.
It depends on how you test it, and how you use it. If I only use my machine
for running a specific app with a given level of load for no more than X hours
at a time, I can test that app/load for X hours and be fairly sure that if it
passes that, my lighter use won't cause trouble.
>Unless you have a billion dollars worth of equipment to strip away the
>circuit case of your CPU chip,
Actually, some CPU's are identifiable as different at different speed grades.
As I recall, some PII/450s were sold as lower grades, and identifiable due to
the stepping number or card arrangement or something, and I've seen many
reports of K7/500's with CPUs marked 600 or 650 inside teamed with slower
cache. And all that requires is the ability to open the cartridge to check.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
"New Windows feature: distributed.microsoft.com-- Fifty million machines
generating random C code in an attempt to produce the next version of Windows."
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 13:29:04 -0600
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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).
> >
> >someone should sue this guy for his continued criminal behaviour claims.
>
> Has MS been found guilty of violations of state and/or federal
> statues in the past? Are they now being investigated for same?
MS has not been found guilty of any criminal violations in the past.
Yes, they are currently in a trial. That doesn't say anyone is guilty of
anything until a verdict has been given.
> <hint: Sherman>
The Sherman act is a civil offense, not a criminal one.
> >of course, this Kerberos thing? MS just followed the standard and used a
> >field that was left for exactly the purpose they needed. They followed
the
> >rules and obeyed the standards - too bad others can't read so well.
>
> The issue is now: where's the RFC which documents what they did?
MS has followed the RFC. There is no law that states they must document
their changes to vendor specific fields. Yes, they agreed to document it,
and they should. But not doing so doesn't violate the standard.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:28:42 GMT
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 15:56:01 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
>The TCP/IP stack on those boxes is almost entirely handwritten at current.
I'm unaware of any TCP/IP stack that isn't almost entirely
handwritten. Do you know of ones that were written by some
other means? Robots, maybe?
If what you really mean is that it was re-written and is almost
entirely new/different from the one originally supplied by the
OS vendor... do you have a cite for that claim?
>I don't know about you, but I call a system that has to have bits
>and pieces re-written from the ground up to handle that kind of
>load a "hacked together" system.
Citation, please, for the "re-written from the ground up" claim.
>Hey! Free is good! But if you want quality...
By implication... here's some of the stuff MS gives away for free or
were included for free in various products:
Internet Explorer
Media Player
PowerToys
Oh, you meant free OS's?
MS gave away NT with purchase of Visual C++ Pro
MS gave away NT with purchase of Visual Basic Pro
(that's how I got NT -- for free)
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:33:38 GMT
"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Has MS been found guilty of violations of state and/or federal
> statues in the past? Are they now being investigated for same?
>
> <hint: Sherman>
>
> >of course, this Kerberos thing? MS just followed the standard and used a
> >field that was left for exactly the purpose they needed. They followed the
> >rules and obeyed the standards - too bad others can't read so well.
>
> The issue is now: where's the RFC which documents what they did?
RFC 1964
This is the GSS-API extension to the Kerberos v5 implementation.
This is not an MS-authored RFC. When MS brought their concerns to
MIT about security context and per-message protection, MIT developed
the GSS-API to allow vendors to put in their own security technology,
yet still maintain Keberos compliance.
I'm no expert on it, but apparently, it's still 100% interoperable
as exemplefied here:
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/library/planning/security/kerbsteps.asp
"Step-by-Step Guide To Kerberos5 (krb5 1.0) Interoperability"
Go towards the bottom, you can see a UNIX client authenticating and testing
a Windows KDC.
Windows clients and Windows KDCs are fully Keberos compliant with
non-Windows clients and non-Windows KDCs.
<non-confrontational, sincere>
If you have evidence otherwise, I would very much like to see it.
</non-confrontational, sincere>
-Chad
*More information and whitepapers:
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/library/howitworks/security/kerbint.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/news/bulletins/kerberos.asp
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:55:46 GMT
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:06:06 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
>And of those bugs that Microsoft knows exists, this calendar business
>was one of the immediate bugs they had to fix.
>
>Does that tell you anything? (It should tell you that those 20+K bugs are
>so minor and irrelevant that the general popualtion, and even special
>users will probably never see them).
Quota limits can be bypassed is another. Create as many 0 byte
files as you'd like --- the quota limit won't stop you. Now you simply
append bytes (736 max) to the existing 0 byte files and use up all the
disk space.
While the window of opportunity is admittedly small, during the
installation process anyone can connect to the ADMIN$ share
as ADMINISTRATOR and no password is required. The vulnerability
exists until the you've entered a password for the Administrator
account AND you've rebooted.
Those are, IMO, the only bugs of any importance that I'm aware of.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:00:42 GMT
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:33:38 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
><non-confrontational, sincere>
>If you have evidence otherwise, I would very much like to see it.
></non-confrontational, sincere>
>
>-Chad
I have none -- it's nice to know that they've addressed the issue.
>*More information and whitepapers:
>http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/library/howitworks/security/kerbint.asp
>http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/news/bulletins/kerberos.asp
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Abley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:01:42 GMT
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 12:03:57 +0100, Philipp Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in:
>linux does not contain any bsd-code, and it's under the gnu-license,
>though the bsds are under the berkeley license.
I believe linux does contain BSD code. Redistributing BSD code under the
GPL is quite legitimate, as I understand it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Burrow)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 5 Mar 2000 20:09:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:35:31 GMT,
Vanbo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think he means that BSD is derived from (the origional) Unix with 20+
>years of development and not just written a releative short time ago by
>someone who needed a OS that was similar to what he used at school.
Must be a slam, because I would doubt anyone would set out to actually
write an OS because they needed it for school.
While it is true that the Linux kernel is relatively young, the tools
that it is surrounded by and that it is developed with have been around
for quite a while. GNU tools were fairly well developed by the time
Linux came along. Not to mention that development and debugging of the
Linux kernel has been fairly rapid.
That said, I am quite happy to see USB support and other new
developments appearing in the OpenBSD kernel. (I've just upgraded to
2.6 as of today.)
--
William Burrow -- New Brunswick, Canada o
Copyright 2000 William Burrow ~ /\
~ ()>()
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:13:47 GMT
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 13:29:04 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 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).
>> >
>> >someone should sue this guy for his continued criminal behaviour claims.
>>
>> Has MS been found guilty of violations of state and/or federal
>> statues in the past? Are they now being investigated for same?
>
>MS has not been found guilty of any criminal violations in the past.
You're quite right... no criminal violations, only civil violations.
>MS has followed the RFC. There is no law that states they must
>document their changes to vendor specific fields.
Of course there's no law... but the correct ethical behavior would be
to document it.
>Yes, they agreed to document it, and they should. But not doing so
>doesn't violate the standard.
I never said it did violate the standard -- I just asked for
documentation of their addition. Based on information
given by Chad Meyers, that process is well underway.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Burrow)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 5 Mar 2000 20:27:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5 Mar 2000 17:31:22 GMT,
Bryan Bursey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, mixed in with the unnecessarily vulgar language, are numerous
>errors. FreeBSD (and the other BSD's) really ARE UNIX. They were
>derived from source released by Berkley. Linux is NOT UNIX. Rather,
>it is UNIX-like.
The free *BSDs are not UNIX either. Only FreeBSD even claims to be BSD
UNIX, both NetBSD and OpenBSD claim to be Unix-like. UNIX is a
trademark controlled by the Open Group and granted only to operating
systems that meet its criteria. See the following link for more:
http://www.unix-systems.org/trademark.html
The trademark holders even claim to dislike the use of ``Unix-like,''
not that I care.
--
William Burrow -- New Brunswick, Canada o
Copyright 2000 William Burrow ~ /\
~ ()>()
------------------------------
From: Simon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Drafting a brochure
Date: 05 Mar 2000 20:31:41 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Kew) writes:
> I'm looking at promoting - and commercially supporting - Linux locally,
> for values of local in the far south-west of England.
>
> I've done some draft scribbling for a brochure, aimed primarily at those
> poor benighted souls caught in the Evil Empire. The purpose of the
> brochure is to explain "why Linux?"
>
> I'm looking for comments on what I've written. I'm not going to post
> a machine-readable URL (I don't want to encourage it to get spidered)
> but it's at http://www.webthing.com and its name is /tux.html .
Have you seen Linuxmanship? (http://zgp.org/~dmarti/linuxmanship/)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:44:47 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:42:35 +1000,
Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 03:11:43 +1000,
>> Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:20:03 +1000,
>> >> Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> brought forth the following words...:
>> >
>> >> >Or perhaps "OSes can't save broken applications" ?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Broken apps shouldn't crash the OS.
>> >
>> >It didn't.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Perhaps you have a different definition of crash from the crew of
>> the Yorktown?
>> According to http://www.info-sec.com/OSsec/OSsec_080498g_j.shtml
>> the problem was a buffer overflow from a badly coded app, and the
>> OS crashed. (actually, all the consoles on the lan crashed, quite
>> a feat...)
>
>I don't see anything about an OS crash there. I see what appears to be the
>server part of a client/server app crashing, but no evidence of the OS going
>down.
>
>
Did you read the bit where it says that all the consoles on the
lan crashed?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace"
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:12:27 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:35:31 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:56:47 -0000,
>> Neil, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:89miqc$rnn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> The "truth" from Microsoft, posted very quickly by its
>> >> faithful and diligent servant, Chad Myers.
>> >>
>> >> On the other hand...
>> >
>> >My understanding of the Kerberos situation, is that Microsoft have made
>use
>> >of a current aspect of "whitespace" in the spec, to add security
>> >information, pertinent to the W2K environment to the ticket.
>> >
>> >Not fundamentally changing the manner in which Kerberos authenticates,
>per
>> >se, but adding info to an current undefined portion of the ticket, in a
>> >similar method to that which they did to "tokens" in the previous NT
>domain
>> >model.
>> >
>> >Neil
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Except that they haven't released the documentation of what they
>> did. "Embrace and Extend" at play.
>
>You didn't finish your sentence: "haven't released teh documentation of what
>they did yet."
>.....yet...
>
>
If/when they fully and openly document their modifications, then
it will not be embrace and extend, untill then, it is.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 15:38:31 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a lamer
"Nathan S. Grey" wrote:
> And let me guess, tried to install it on daddy's 'puter?
> Please, finish middle school before posting more examples of your supreme
>incompetence.
I've gotten Solaris x86 to boot up on one of those Windows Compaqs
with the hundred-something internet access buttons on the keyboard.
Pretty amazing when you can get Solaris to boot up on a machine that
was "specially designed for Windows" (it even says so on the case).
Solaris sure is picky sometimes, though, on which x86 machine it wants
to run on. The damned thing wouldn't boot on my custom-built, made
for FreeBSD and Linux machine. This must be one of the great ironies
of life.
Another thing that was weird is that Windows 98 crashes in 20 minutes
on the specially designed for Windows, hundred internet access button
on the keyboard Wintel Compaq. Meanwhile, on my custom-built, made
for FreeBSD and Linux machine, Windows 98 would stay running for 2-3
days EASY. Is this one of life's great mysteries? Yes, FreeBSD and
Linux would happily stay running for days as well on this machine.
Couldn't get Solaris to install on it, though. Solaris x86 sure is a
strange beast.
As an aside, I've heard that XFree86 is planning on doing something
with those many strange internet access buttons in future versions of
XFree86. I've got my "Windows key" mapped to "meta" in XFree86, as
it's a regular Windows keyboard (no strange buttons).
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:44:58 GMT
William Burrow wrote:
> >I think he means that BSD is derived from (the origional) Unix with 20+
> >years of development and not just written a releative short time ago by
> >someone who needed a OS that was similar to what he used at school.
>
> Must be a slam, because I would doubt anyone would set out to actually
> write an OS because they needed it for school.
Wasn't really intended to be a slam (on my part) As far as I understand
it, Linux was written because Linus wanted something that worked the
same way as what he used at school. That said, the actual reason will
probably only be know by Linus himself.
I guess my whole point was that the BSD code is more mature and has more
years behind it. As far as the whole "Well, sys V is more directly
descendent" That's not the point as we were discussing the various BSDs
and Linux. As far as what is a more direct descendent of what, who
cares, considering the original UNIX was written in 1972, the changes
that have occurred in technology and computer hardware make any
comparison of any modern OS to the original UNIX pretty silly.
-Bill
--
Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
FreeBSD: Are you guys coming or what?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 6 Mar 2000 04:49:42 GMT
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:59:08 -0600, Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good information. Thanks.
The Fallback entry just points to a known good kernel.
--
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] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 6 Mar 2000 04:49:43 GMT
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 23:52:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> X looks like crap no matter what you do to it.
That's like saying art looks like crap no matter what it is.
> Installing pirated True-type
> fonts from Windows helps, but it still lacks the smoothness that Windows
> has and even more so that Mac has.
Considering Windows has a worse font engine than that which RISC OS 2
had, it's still crap.
> When I have to look at a screen all day, especially a 19inch state of the
> art monitor/video card combination it better look good. X hurts my eyes and
> while the themes are nice the meat and potatoes (the applications) look
> horrible in my opinion.
That makes no sense. If you install a Gtk theme, all Gtk applications
take up that theme. To say the theme looks nice but then the
application doesn't is a rather odd statement.
> >Besides, the font on X windows are so bad, it wastes display resource. Why,
> >because it need more pixels to achieve the same result.
>
> It also seem sluggish to me, even running a Matrox G400. Dragging Windows
> around produces "shadows" and remanent's of destroyed Windows. Sucks if you
> ask me.
Is this a known bug? Driver bugs should not be blamed on X.
> It lacks crispness. I am talking about
> kde/Windowmaker/Enlightenment and worst of all Gnome/Enlightenment.
Gnome, with a decent theme looks much nicer than Windows IMHO.
> See the above. Putting Linux side by side with other OS's is a real joke as
> far as display is concerned. Sure the themes look nice but what happens
> when you launch the applications?
> Boxy, fuzzy and generally cheap looking.
Fuzzy? Boxy? Would you care to post screenshots?
--
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: Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 04 Mar 2000 15:43:44 +0100
Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You've never installed an app that required updated libs, and then had
> the updated libs cause something to break? WOW!
No installer updates the libs without asking me.
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:28:42 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Philipp Huber wrote:
>linux does not contain any bsd-code,
Well, just a bit of BSD code actually.
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
