Linux-Advocacy Digest #640, Volume #25 Wed, 15 Mar 00 15:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("Charles W. Swiger")
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! ("Net Walker")
An Illuminating Anecdote ("mr_organic")
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Question (Craig Kelley)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? (Craig Kelley)
0FB9CD5C 2D drafting program. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Disproving the lies. ("mr_organic")
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. ("mr_organic")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:10:07 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy scott hand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]!.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 4:21 PM, Charles W. Swiger
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At least if you have PowerPC Mac hardware, the license for the upper layers
>> is called "MacOS" for roughly $99/copy. And yeah, you are free to replace
>> the kernel Apple ships with one that you've build from the Darwin sources.
>
> This is the confusing part. Obviously you can not do this with the current
> OS 9, but you seem to be claiming that you will be able to with OS X (cuz
> it's based on Darwin, duh).
That's one of the primary goals for the Darwin project, according to Apple.
> AFAIK Apple will only be selling OS X as a complete package and not as
> Darwin+(everything else).
I think that's true as well.
> If versions of Darwin were to be swappable, how would this be handled? A
> custom install selection? Or does the non-Darwin really sit that cleanly
> atop Darwin?
Darwin is available seperately from MacOS X. Apple says they will keep a
loose syncronization between the two codebases so that the pieces of Darwin
should be able to drop in place over an existing MacOS X install and be
compatible with the kernel and other low-level stuff that Apple shipped with
MacOS X.
> My original thoughts were to the idea that Apple could sell Quartz, etc.
> unbundled leaving it up to the user to provide a platform. Everything I have
> read about OS X would seem to indicate that Apple does not want to leave
> this integration to the user, even as an option.
Why? Most people installing MacOS X are going to want a working system,
including the kernel, device drivers, and so forth.
So long as there are no license fees involved at that layer (and the existence
of Darwin as open source indicates this is the case), there is no cost
difference between buying the full thing and just buying the upper layers.
> IF, on the other hand, this sort of hacking is encouraged by Apple, with no
> devious countermeasures taken, then it opens up a whole new market with a
> lot of value to the enterprise/server world. I would think that the intel
> problem would be solvable and this is where it does become important that
> Apple have a strategy in place to license just the top layers.
The problem of running on Intel was solved. OPENSTEP and Rhapsody run fine on
Intel, WebObjects runs fine on Intel using GUI apps built from Cocoa, and I
would be astonished if Apple didn't have MacOS X Server running on
Intel in-house.
Not that the above does any of us any good. Apple apparently believes that
Cocoa and their GUI layer represents a technology which they should keep
proprietary.
> Not doing the intel bits themselves might assure that OS X not become a
> popular consumer-type desktop on non-Apple hw, but they could still sell to
> large businesses with in-house development that refuse to switch from intel.
People who tried depending on Apple's promises to make Cocoa for Intel
licenses available generally had their companies go out of business or ended
up getting fired.
-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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:59:51 GMT
In article <38ce831e@news>,
"Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8algc7$qhg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <38cdfa06@news>, Rich Cloutier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > As far as standards go, [DnD] needs to be done at the LOWEST
COMMON
> > > DENOMINATOR ie, XFree86, so that every graphical program can
conform
> > > to the standards, whether it be KDE, Gnome, or Fred's Desktop
> > > Environment.
> >
> > No, it goes in at the toolkit level so that no matter what display
> > hosts your Linux session, you can use DnD! Furthermore, supporting
a
> > DnD protocol, especially one as rich as Xdnd (which is used by both
> > KDE and Gnome,) takes quite a lot of work to do even after you
handle
> > the basics of actually talking the protocol, since you need to deal
> > with all the user activity during the drag, etc. Hence it is doubly
a
> > natural for the toolkit level, e.g. Qt and GTK[-+]*.
> >
> > Donal.
>
> Then you've got to make sure that EVERY toolkit is DnD compatible. To
me, as
> a non-programmer, that seems like more work than implementing it at
the base
> level. The toolkits would then simply provide convenient vehicles for
> implementing the base functionality, and it wouldn't matter if they
were all
> different, because the same thing would be happening at the core
level,
> between apps.
If you implement it at the XFree level, it will not work on any other
implementation of X, and that is bad (besides, I can't even imagine what
"implementing DnD at XFree86" would mean).
At the toolkit level, yes, you need to do it for every toolkit.
How many toolkits are those? Well, realistically, it's Qt, GTK+, Tk
and Motif.
Qt and GTK+ already use XDND. Tk, apparently, will do it too,
eventually. As for motif, it's a special case, in that it develops at
a glacial pace, it's proprietary, and it already has its own DND
protocol.
Solution: make the toolkits also handle Motif drops. GTK+ already
has this, Qt 2.1 has this, and maybe Tk will have it, but not
having it is much less important than not having Xdnd support.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Net Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:12:31 GMT
Even when this messages are some ... offensive ... almost all of hat is :
sad but true ... Metallica forever.
Net
Walker.
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:34:17 -0600
<DISCLAIMER>
Astute readers will note that this posting is coming from Outlook
Express. This is because it is being sent from my work machine and
not my home machine; I can assure all parties that the message was
composed in GNU Emacs running on a Linux machine. This is to
establish my bona fides as a Penguinista and allay suspicion that I am
a Windows troll.
</DISCLAIMER>
This is a true story:
Like so many others out there, I make my living as a "corporate
software developer". What this means is that I spend my days inside
of $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL writing $BORING_CORPORATE_APPLICATION. I am
also the lone voice of Linux advocacy in what is largely a Windows NT
shop.
It happens, though, that every so often I am called upon to implement
something or other in C. Usually it is a quick-and-dirty hack to get
something working on one of our few remaining Unix boxen, but
sometimes it is to solve a knotty problem on windows that
$LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL cannot handle.
A few days ago I was working on a piece of C code to solve just such a
problem when a cow orker (and remember that orking cows is illegal in
many states, so don't try this yourself without permission) slunk into
my office with a question about $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL. I was busily
banging C code into Emacs, a copy of K&R's "The C Programming
Language" at my elbow to allay the odd braino caused by using
$LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL too much. Irritated at being pulled out of my
hacking daze, and further irritated at having to answer what turned
out to be a really dumb question, I was in no mood to deal with any
further nonsense.
But then the unnamed developer asked: "What's that IDE you're using?
It doesn't look like $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL."
I wanted to say: "That, my dear clueless dumbass, is Emacs, wherein
all True Programmers lay down the Holy Writ."
What I did say: "That's Emacs."
He said: "What's Emacs?"
I said: "Out of my office, infidel."
Later that day I received a gentle lecture from my boss about being
"more of a team-player". I pointed out to him that I was hired to
write code and not to glad-hand idiots. I *further* pointed out that
my code-writing time was being severely impacted due to answering
questions from "developers" who had been so coddled and babied by
$LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL that they couldn't solve the simplest problems
themselves. They were like the old COBOL coders I used to know,
simply plugging in code chunks by rote and staring slack-jawed at the
screen when something went wrong.
This in my mind is a paradigmatic example of why Linux (or *BSD, or
even other Unices) are a Good Thing for hackers to learn, even if they
don't use it every day. Learning Unix requires mental discipline and
problem-solving capability, and that's *before* you begin to code.
And when you code, you *can* use fancy GUI tools like Glade or
KDevelop for your apps, but you still have to know a great deal about
the toolchain and associated utilities to produce workable programs.
Now, Windows/Mac folks hate this and shout, "Who wants to learn all
that crap?" Unix people roll their eyes because they know that the
Windows/Mac "developers" will come crying to them for help when their
fancy IDEs barf out cryptic error messages.
It never fails to amaze me how little many Windows developers know
about "real programming". Many of them have no conception of how to
write common computer algorithms (if I see another badly-coded
bubble-sort in $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_ENVIRONMENT, I'm going to start
shooting). They don't know how to intelligently optimize code.
Modular coding seems to be beyond them. They spout a lot about OOP,
but can't seem to implement it very well (if at all). Their skills do
not translate well across tools -- they may be proficient at
$LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL, but be utterly useless at
$OTHER_LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL. They are not, in short, *hackers*.
They are the modern equivalent of those old-time card-wallopers who
are now (thankfully) nearly extinct.
Why am I so angry about this? Can't I just live and let live?
No. Computer programming is an art as much as a craft, and I take it
very seriously. I've spent years refining my skills, learning from
the masters in the field, and writing reams of really shitty code
before I got passably good at it. But I always knew, right from the
start, that I had a lot to learn and that there were no shortcuts if I
really wanted to gain mastery over my craft.
Many of the Windows developers I come into contact with, though, seem
to be innocent of even rudimentary hackish knowledge. By this I mean
that while they know how to "code" in the formal sense, they have no
real problem solving skills. What happens if the code compiles okay
but the linker barfs on an unknown symbol? They have no clue. It's
like a decree from the gods. Which header file needs to be included
for the standard C library? No idea; if the IDE didn't put it in
there, they're lost.
I know I seem like one of those grumpy "back in my day we had to
toggle our code into the computer...in *octal*!" programmers. But the
point I'm trying to make is that, for programmers at least, Windows
kills the soul. Windows is like Disney World in a lot of ways --
flashy, "user friendly", but ultimately sterile and passionless. It
is filled with signs saying DO NOT ENTER and AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL
ONLY. To accept this is to give up the notion of programming as an
art or expression of creativity.
Linux (and other Unixes) are far from perfect. It is indeed hard
to learn -- but to learn Unix is to gain an appreciation for the
enormous power and flexibility the system gives you. If you don't
like something, you are free to change it to work exactly the way you
want it to. Windows, on the other hand, is pretty much static -- you
take what you're given or you do without.
POSTSCRIPT
==========
There is an irony in the fact that I am posting this diatribe from a
Windows machine. Some might see this as the basest kind of hypocrisy;
if I hate Windows so much, why not quit my job and get a job where I
can tinker with Linux all day long? However, I would reply that there
is no *inherent* reason why Windows needs to be this way, and that I
try to use Windows with the same hackish spirit that I use Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:00:15 -0600
mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This is a true story:
But horribly biased.
> This in my mind is a paradigmatic example of why Linux (or *BSD, or
> even other Unices) are a Good Thing for hackers to learn, even if they
> don't use it every day. Learning Unix requires mental discipline and
> problem-solving capability, and that's *before* you begin to code.
> And when you code, you *can* use fancy GUI tools like Glade or
> KDevelop for your apps, but you still have to know a great deal about
> the toolchain and associated utilities to produce workable programs.
The tool has little to do with your skill as a programmer. Either you have
the discipline or you don't. The tools you use will not change that. I
know crappy unix coders and experts in C or C++ that use windows and nothing
else.
Learning Unix doesn't require discipline, it requires a masochistic bent. I
know this, since I spent the better part of 3 years writing code on a DG/UX
system.
> Now, Windows/Mac folks hate this and shout, "Who wants to learn all
> that crap?" Unix people roll their eyes because they know that the
> Windows/Mac "developers" will come crying to them for help when their
> fancy IDEs barf out cryptic error messages.
This is overly generalistic. There are probably orders of magnitude more
Windows developers than there are Unix developers. That means you're going
to have many more idiots in sheer numbers simply because of the larger base.
And since Windows is the most common platform, it's the platform targeted by
those that are in the business for the money rather than as a career.
> It never fails to amaze me how little many Windows developers know
> about "real programming". Many of them have no conception of how to
> write common computer algorithms (if I see another badly-coded
> bubble-sort in $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_ENVIRONMENT, I'm going to start
> shooting). They don't know how to intelligently optimize code.
> Modular coding seems to be beyond them. They spout a lot about OOP,
> but can't seem to implement it very well (if at all). Their skills do
> not translate well across tools -- they may be proficient at
> $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL, but be utterly useless at
> $OTHER_LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL. They are not, in short, *hackers*.
> They are the modern equivalent of those old-time card-wallopers who
> are now (thankfully) nearly extinct.
What you are describing is programmers that have a job. Not programmers
that have a career. Like any field, those that take their career seriously
have pride in their work and work to better themselves. It doesn't matter
what language, OS, or development tool you use, if you are a professional,
you'll learn to use what you have to the best degree possible.
*hackers* have no monopoly on good code. In fact, most of them write pretty
shitty code. They solve the problems and then move on to the next
challenge. To a hacker, it's simply not a worth their time if they aren't
doing something challenging and unique (as your attitude appears to convey).
> No. Computer programming is an art as much as a craft, and I take it
> very seriously. I've spent years refining my skills, learning from
> the masters in the field, and writing reams of really shitty code
> before I got passably good at it. But I always knew, right from the
> start, that I had a lot to learn and that there were no shortcuts if I
> really wanted to gain mastery over my craft.
There is a serious effort under way to push programming from an art to a
profession, similar to doctor, lawyer, or engineer. It's this "art" aspect
which makes software development so risky, difficult to predict, and high
cost.
> Many of the Windows developers I come into contact with, though, seem
> to be innocent of even rudimentary hackish knowledge. By this I mean
> that while they know how to "code" in the formal sense, they have no
> real problem solving skills. What happens if the code compiles okay
> but the linker barfs on an unknown symbol? They have no clue. It's
> like a decree from the gods. Which header file needs to be included
> for the standard C library? No idea; if the IDE didn't put it in
> there, they're lost.
And you've never run into a Windows programmer that knew his shit? Ever?
I submit to you that you would find the exact same people writing Unix code
if it had 90% of the market share. It has nothing to do with the tool and
everything to do with what attracts incompetant people.
> Linux (and other Unixes) are far from perfect. It is indeed hard
> to learn -- but to learn Unix is to gain an appreciation for the
> enormous power and flexibility the system gives you. If you don't
> like something, you are free to change it to work exactly the way you
> want it to. Windows, on the other hand, is pretty much static -- you
> take what you're given or you do without.
How many people actually change the source code of the Linux system to suit
their needs? Why would you do this, the next release will have changes to
the same source you modified? You'll spend days or weeks trying to repatch
your systems to get it back to where it was.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Question
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 Mar 2000 12:33:03 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) writes:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:27:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hi. My name is Ryan Higgens, a student at Clemson University and I'm
> >doing an english argumentative research paper on Linux vs. Windows.
>
> [snip questions]
>
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>
> Since you're posging from Deja I'll point out that they have an archive of
> this group. Just read the last week or so and will have as good an answer
> as you will get from this post.
"Good"? :)
No way!
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 Mar 2000 12:40:44 -0700
"scott hand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]!.net> writes:
> This is the confusing part. Obviously you can not do this with the
> current OS 9, but you seem to be claiming that you will be able to
> with OS X (cuz it's based on Darwin, duh). AFAIK Apple will only be
> selling OS X as a complete package and not as Darwin+(everything
> else). If versions of Darwin were to be swappable, how would this be
> handled? A custom install selection? Or does the non-Darwin really
> sit that cleanly atop Darwin? My original thoughts were to the idea
> that Apple could sell Quartz, etc. unbundled leaving it up to the
> user to provide a platform. Everything I have read about OS X would
> seem to indicate that Apple does not want to leave this integration
> to the user, even as an option.
OS X will probably be just like NeXT Step was (since it basically *is*
NeXT Step). The "core" OS can be fiddled with as much as you like;
there is no bloated System program which packages everything
together. In fact, if DP3 is any indication, you'll be able to boot
up MacOS X in a console mode, seeing all the Mach messages going by on
a screen of text. The layers on top of it (Quartz, Cocoa, etc.) are
implemented as run-time libraries and programs. Take a look at this
link for a more in-depth look:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/macos-x-dp3/macos-x-dp3-1.html
> IF, on the other hand, this sort of hacking is encouraged by Apple,
> with no devious countermeasures taken, then it opens up a whole new
> market with a lot of value to the enterprise/server world.I would
> think that the intel problem would be solvable and this is where it
> does become important that Apple have a strategy in place to license
> just the top layers. Not doing the intel bits themselves might
> assure that OS X not become a popular consumer-type desktop on
> non-Apple hw, but they could still sell to large businesses with
> in-house development that refuse to switch from intel. Note, I am
> not speculating as to the likelihood that they would be very
> succesful with this strategy, just explorin possibilities.
I would say that it is *vital* to Apple that they allow this sort of
thing.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 0FB9CD5C 2D drafting program.
Date: Wed,15 Mar 2000 13:42:51+2000
Embrace the new Standard in Computer Aided design - LinuxCAD !
LinuxCAD is an original independently designed program runs on new
advanced Linux Operating system.
Complex design and graphics are created with ease and elegance.
LinuxCAD erases difficulties of Microsoft Visio and goes head to
head with AutoCAD.
Our improved introductory packageis only $99.00 and we provide
and custom design symbol libraries appropriate for your projects.
www.linuxcad.com
www.softwareforge.com
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:58:03 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:33:00 GMT, Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >If you had $400 to spend on a computer, why would you use one with
> >unreliable, case sensitive software, when you could just get comething
> >from eMachines or the like, with Windows 98 and everything installed?
>
> I'm truly impressed that you could write that with a straight face.
> Saying "reliable" and "Win98" in the same sentence, while at the same time
> implying (but not saying explicitly) that Linux is unreliable in
> comparison (with Win98!). You're almost as full of shit as Rex.
>
> You are the master. Thanks for giving me my morning chuckle.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
And using emachines as an example! Ever since Packard Bell bit the
dust (thank god!), Emachines reigns supreme as the crappiest box on
the market. Puny power supplies, lousy motherboards, bad case
design, and ultra-cheap components.
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:55:56 -0600
I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree:
a) Debian Linux runs great on my vanilla K6-2/450 with an
Ensoniq AudioPCI card and 128MB of RAM. It runs fine
on an old NEC P120 I have set up as a firewall. It runs
fine on my wife's PII/233 clone. All of them are "normal"
hardware -- except my wife has a zip drive in her box, but
Linux works fine with that too.
b) Games. Granted, Linux has far fewer games than Win9x. Still,
gamers are well-served by Linux -- QuakeIII, UT, and so on.
c) There are loads of productivity software available now --
WordPerfect, Star Office, AbiWord, etc.
"Net Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:beQz4.747$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I fully agree with you. Though, another OS's have their own problems
too.
> Anyway, by now, Windows 98 is the ONLY possible choice to use normal
> hardware, play games and compute home works ... unstable, but the ONLY
> option, I reapeat.
>
>
> Net Walker.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
