Linux-Advocacy Digest #610, Volume #25 Mon, 13 Mar 00 09:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (mlw)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Drestin Black")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Drestin
Black")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Drestin
Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:59:17 -0500
Robert Morelli wrote:
[lots snipped]
> > > If you ask a typical UNIX bigot
> >
> > I take offense to "UNIX bigot"
>
> If you read everything I write, I think you'll realize that I don't condemn UNIX or
>its
> advocates wholesale. I am generally favorable to UNIX and its users, gurus, etc.,
> but I give no one an uncritical nod. I condemn a particular attitude which the word
>"bigot"
> captures appropriately. If you use UNIX but aren't a bigot, the term doesn't apply
>to you so
> you have no reason to take offense, unless you ally yourself with every UNIX user.
Oh, please. I don't buy the excuse.
> > > why
> > > you can't load a file into Emacs by dragging a file object onto the Emacs
>window, he'll
> > > smugly answer that UNIX people wouldn't use such a capability even if it were
>there. These
> > > people are actually proud of their insularity and lack of sophistication.
> >
> > Judging everyone that uses UNIX by one person being flip is stupid.
>
> I'm not sure why you assume that I base this statement on a single experience. I
>work
> at a university, where UNIX is quite common. In any case, the important question
>here
> is, if this is not a typical attitude then why in fact doesn't Emacs have the
>capability
> I mention and why aren't UNIX users angrily demanding it? For that matter, why did
>it
> take 19 major iterations (that's right, 19, no typo) before it got scroll bars?
Emacs does not matter. It is but one application in a world of
applications. The views and actions of RMS with Emacs has little impact
on the whole UNIX arena. If you don't like emacs, don't use it. I do not
use it.
>
> > >
> > > Mind you, I'm no Windows advocate. But I'll at least give Microsoft credit for
>one thing.
> > > In their own bumbling, incompetent way, they have been gradually -- very,
>very gradually --
> > > adopted paradigms from other systems (of course, always implementing them in a
>half assed
> > > way). Their philosophy is one of extreme conservatism in that they never
>introduce anything
> > > original and have no vision of going beyond existing paradigms. But neither do
>they limit
> > > themselves by bigotry. I have some sympathy for Apple, because even though the
>Mac is weak in
> > > many respects, the company did have vision. They introduced the Newton about a
>year before MS
> > > cancelled its first incarnation of the WinCE API (called WinPad). And in the
>late 80's they
> > > conceived of Pink (aka Taligent) that would go beyond anything then (or now) in
>existence.
> > > Unfortunately, Pink was an expensive failure. As a fall back, they have now
>adopted a UNIX
> > > foundation for future versions of their OS. That's not too exciting a vision,
>but it does
> > > solve the immediate problem of getting decent multitasking.
> > >
> > > As for UNIX, I have to say that there has been a general complacency to remain
>with very,
> > > very good implentations of a 1970's computing paradigm. UNIX still thrives
>because for
> > > many purposes a very good implementation of simple, old fashioned ideas is
>superior to a weak
> > > implementation of something more sophisticated. I do find it a bit of a
>depressing
> > > philosophy though and in some cases deeply frustrating.
> >
> > Anyone that thinks "old fashioned" has any place in UNIX has not been
> > paying attention. The issue is reason. Make a good case for different
> > metaphors and paradigms and they will be implemented and introduce into
> > standards before Microsoft's first rip-off.
> >
> > Many of the things that pass as programming paradigms in Windows are
> > simply bad ideas. To adopt them simply because they are new would be
> > foolish. Does this mean that things are rejected out of hand? Of course
> > not, but if it is a bad idea, it shouldn't happen.
>
> Well, there you go. That's the kind of dismissive, insular attitude I'm talking
>about.
> Back in the 80's DOS users used to talk about mice and screen graphics as useless,
>frivolous,
> ... It was a combination of ignorance and envy. You don't mention anything
>specific as a "bad
> idea," so let's stick with the drag and drop example. What is so bad about drag
>and drop?
I said programming paradigms, not UI devices. No one ever said "drag &
drop" was not a good idea. My paragraph had to do with what passes for
software design under Windows. DDE, COM, ActiveX, DirectX, these are all
examples of poorly thought out, badly implemented crap. The fact that
they are constantly changing the API, or obsoleting them proves MS has
no idea how to design software. Just picking up the crap the MS spews
out for the sake of doing it is a bad idea. Define the end-result
functionality desired, and design good portable way of doing it. That is
the UNIX way. That's why programs designed 15 years ago can be compiled
today with little modification. Try, I dare you, to compile a Windows
program code base from 15 years ago, it won't work.
So you see, in UNIX, we make s^&%^T to last here. In Windows, you are on
the upgrade train that costs $200 bucks a stop.
As for UI design and innovation, my hat goes off to some of the guys
working on UNIX, have you seen enlightenment? I don't use it, it is
still too unstable for me, but it is way cool.
>
> > > But, fortunately I don't think that's really the end of the story. There is a
>new energy
> > > among the younger developers of Linux and the traditional UNIX sense of
>community still
> > > prevails. I believe that open, vigorous communities are ultimately more
>creative and
> > > productive than closed systems. For this reason I expect Linux to break free of
>the depressing
> > > legacy of complacency and I see it as the most promising system for the future.
> >
> > I think you don't see what is happening. UNIX and thus Linux are not
> > "old and stodgy" by any measure. It ain't Windows, no way, but some fun
> > and exciting stuff is happening. Good GUI apps are coming, and many of
> > the GUI apps in Linux are better than the run of the mill Windows apps.
> > I will grant you the $100 Billion dollar software company apps are not
> > on Linux, yet, but Linux has better implementations for the $100 Million
> > dollar software company apps.
>
> You say that I don't see what is happening, but then go on to reinforce what I just
> said. Good GUI apps are on the way (but mostly not yet here) because there is a
> shift to a more modern attitude.
In reality, UNIX may not be more "modern" than Windows, but it is more
advanced. Windows was designed to run on two floppies and an 8088. UNIX
was designed, years ago, for large computers that have very similar
capabilities as the ones we currently have.
Velvita is more modern than many other cheeses, but, it is not better.
Velvita uses more modern processing techniques in manufacture, but that
does not make it better either. One can hardly dispute that Windows 9x
is the velvita of operating systems.
> The original question was whether there will be
> development tools for Linux of the same quality (or better (!)) as the leading
>Windows
> development tools.
The subjective words in this sentence is "quality" and "better." From
the perspective of many, they are already better. If you want a GUI
development system, those are coming.
> I don't know, but it does look promising. Borland for instance
> has always been known for first class tools and they have JBuilder on Linux and are
>porting
> C++ Builder. It remains to be seen whether these tools really stand up to their
>Windows
> counterparts, and whether the Linux market supports their continued development.
>This
> last point is not just a question of market size; it leads us back to the attitude
>issue.
There is no borland anymore.
> I expect the traditional UNIX folks won't flock to C++ Builder. They'll go on
>happily
> using gcc and Emacs. But if Linux does grow, there will be lots of Windows refugees
> who will require something providing the modern conveniences of their old home.
I am, in fact a Windows refugee. However, I respect UNIX for what it is,
so I do not blindly want to add things that Windows had, simply to have
them. The one thing that UNIX really really needs, is the notion of a
DLL. A shared library is not a dll.
Also, you imply egcs is a bad tool, why? Because it is command line?
Look at visualc++, it uses the command line "cl.exe" to do its compiling
exactly the same way any other gui development environment would do it
under UNIX with egcs.
One last thing about IDE environments. They usually have a two or three
year usage per developer. New developers use IDEs because they make
things easy for them. As the developer gets more experienced, they
notice how restrictive the IDE becomes, sooner or later they abandon the
IDE because it slows them down.
You may argue this point, and that is OK, but it is true. An integrated
development environment is usually the equivalent of training wheels.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:58:37 -0500
"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ah2mk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> For the hardware I described every step is necessary. Please tell me
> what step is not necessary if you think I am wrong.
Can you allow me to make up a hardware/pre-existing software setup that is
as massively contrieved and specifically hostile to a linux setup as humanly
possible and then give you ever single possible option step to an
idiots-guide-to-setting-up-an-OS and find it relates to... what again?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:52:53 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8agr5b$23eq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8aeb2o$3oq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:38:01 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > message
> >> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>> Note that it was also given in this thread's precursor that any OS
> >> >>> would have to be adjusted, 'even' W2K.
> >> >>
> >> >>Hmm... who said that? The whole point I was trying to make is, that
> >> >>Win2K is scalable enough it wouldn't have to be modified (in it's
core,
> >> >>meaning the filesystem or the TCP/IP stack) like Solaris was.
> >> >>
> >> >>-Chad
> >>
> >> > The fact is that you don't know how much the Solaris stack was
> >> > modified. You originally made a pull-it-out-of-your-ass claim that
> >> > the stack was re-written, when in fact all Microsoft has said on the
> >> > matter is that it "had to customize the filestore service as well as
> >> > the IP stack." That's it... customize. They did NOT say that they
> >> > had to modify the source code.
> >>
> >> They couldnt have said that, because that would imply that Sun actually
> >> let them see the source code for *any* portion of solaris, which has
> >> never, EVER happened. For reasons quite obvious to anyone with a
brain.
>
>
> > you missed something anyone who knows history would know... Sun didn't
let
> > MS see it, they let hotmail.com (pre-MS purchase) see it and modified
it.
>
> I understand that, but I also understand fully that the NDAs signed by
hotmail
> and Sun were NOT transfered through the microsoft deal. Microsoft has
> absolutely no contractual right to see any portion of solaris source code,
> and very likely wont EVER. Again, for obvious reasons.
Understood and agreed. But, hotmail.com did work hand-in-hand with sun on
the solaris source code, the reason being that performance was not quite to
sun's claim and even sun was a bit confused why so they offered to work with
hotmail on it (remember, at the time MS didn't have a hotmail.com (msn.com
was a pale shadow) and Sun making hotmail.com better was a great thing for
Sun). Sun, not hotmail.com, programmers DID fix the problem but it was a
narrow focus fix and, as I'm told, was not refitted into the "off-the-shelf"
product - the fix was too specific to hotmail.com's _hardware_ and
particular software application. That is about as close to the truth as I
can reveal.
>
> > I know someone who was a part of it - why is it so hard to accept that
it
> > was done. It's not such a big thing!
>
> Me too--:) And again, it was IP networking functionality that was
modified,
> not anything that was as low-level as tcp-stack source. Not even close.
this is where I'm confused. If you know someone who was a part of it, as I
do, and knew how the NDA worked, I'm sure you'll be nodding your head
reading along the above paragraph I just wrote. That part is not a great
secret (not public knowledge but not too hard to find out) - so how can you
say "not the tcp-stack source. Not even close." cause that's exactly one of
the two parts that changed. Sun literally modified the solaris tcp stack for
hotmail.com. this does not have to necessarily be interpreted as a weakness
of solaris - all software needs tweaking. If it didn't we wouldn't have 2000
linux kernel revisions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 13 Mar 2000 09:08:48 -0500
In article <8ahg1g$2p3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> For the hardware I described every step is necessary. Please tell me
>> what step is not necessary if you think I am wrong.
>
> You didnt have to go through all that partition crap. Theres a lot of
> partition software out there thats much easier than what you used.
What I used is what MS provided, and that is what I described. I'm sure
there is other software you can buy to make this easier, but how is the
average home user supposed to know this? I am just a single user on a
single machine, not a system installer, so it seems silly for me to have
to buy extra software for one-time use to partition a disk. Why doesn't
MS just fix the bugs in this very basic stuff?
Anyway as I mentioned earlier the partition stuff, although admittedly
very confusing, is completely keystroke-driven and time-wise a small
part of the whole installation. Although the partition software I'm
sure is far more pleasant to use, it may even add steps since now you
have yet another disk to boot from etc.
> You also didnt have to remove the pcmcia stuff to install.
Yes I did. If I don't the initial Windows '95 installation goes beserk
and hangs because the driver for the PCMIA controller itself is
installed as an "unknown device", and the cards seem to put the
controller into some kind of weird mode that freezes the machine. I
must delete the unknown device, then install the controller driver, then
finally (after rebooting) coax the plug-and-play software to install the
card drivers at the right time.
> Even if you had
> removed the pcmcia stuff to install, you wouldnt have had to have put them
> back and configured them individually.
Well, perhaps I could have pushed them in simultaneously instead of one
at a time, saving me one step out of several hundred, but when I did
this originally Windows got confused by what drivers were where - while
swapping drivers floppies etc. - because I installed two things at once
without rebooting in between. Perhaps I made a mistake somewhere, but I
just didn't want to waste time with more experiments.
Even installing them separately gets Windows confused about where the
drivers are, which you can see with a bunch of error messages that must
be ignored and the correct driver location provided multiple times.
> I make a habit of out of using
> pcmcia hardware that is supported completely by windows98 (much easier
> now with win2000) "out of the box". That way, when I reboot windows just
> installs the proper drivers all by itself. You might have to click "ok"
> on a dialog box or two though.
Well, that's all very nice but I'm talking about a specific machine as I
described it. I did not have a choice of PCMIA cards since they came
with the machine. I should not have to throw them away and spend money
all over again buying replacement PCMIAs that behave as you describe.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:53:26 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8agr8j$23eq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8aeasa$3oq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Go ahead and post some more microsoft URLS that swear up and down that
> >> the win2000 tcp stack can throw 2.4 gigs per second over a single
> >> interface.
> >>
>
> > hmmm... hows stuff like this hit ya?
> > http://www.unisys.com/events/comdex99/presentations/uis-ms.asp
> > or
> > http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1018161,00.html
> > or
> > http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Content/7704_01.html
>
> > As you can see, it's easy to document claims... now, here is one claim
from:
> > http://www.washington.edu/hdtv/sc99/
>
> > "Microsoft and the Alliance and the partners demonstrated that it is now
> > possible to send a gigabit-per-second TCP/IP stream from one Windows
2000
> > workstation to another over a WAN. Microsoft teamed with the Alliance's
NT
> > cluster development team and with the National Laboratory for Applied
> > Network Research (NLANR) to verify that Windows 2000 TCP/IP software
> > performance scales at Gbps rates on long-distance networks. This work
> > demonstrates speed breakthroughs in end-to-end workstation
internetworking
> > and shows the capabilities of Windows 2000 TCP/IP."
>
> > now - is it your claim that MS conspired with all these people to make
shit
> > up and then paid off the press to misreport what they saw?
>
> No, im saying that the microsoft claim of 2.4 gigs per second of streaming
> video media (hundreds of connections) on *one* interface was a boldfaced
lie.
>
quote me where they claimed what you dispute and then we'll look at it again
:)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
