Linux-Advocacy Digest #656, Volume #25 Thu, 16 Mar 00 16:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Navindra Umanee)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Bryant Brandon)
Yay! (was: Giving up on NT) (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Tim Kelley)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Yay! (was: Giving up on NT) (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* (JEDIDIAH)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob Hauck)
Re: which OS is best? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (abraxas)
Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown (George Richard Russell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:32:09 GMT
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It wont take 10 man hours of labor to recompile Oracle, just
> a few minutes. It's not like you hand compile the thing. OTOH,
> you will gain more interesting information about the product
> and be given a tool to minimize problems.
Oh wow. Even the GNU stuff take a few minutes to get through just the
./configure stage. Somehow I don't think Oracle source would even
come with configure or compile out of the box. At the very least, one
would have to make sure all the source dependencies have been met.
Did you check out the Netscape source when it was first released?
Har.
> THAT will reduce TCO in the long run.
What will? Experience from compiling the source?
In the long long run, having the source code for everything is no
doubt a Good Thing(TM), I'm not saying it's not. You have the option
of fixing bugs or existing inherent problems (eg, Y2K) long after the
company has gone down under. It might not be cheap, but at least you
have the option.
>>Of course, this is assuming that the glibc2 Oracle does in fact not
>>work with glibc2.1, which admittedly I've been loath to test at this
>>point.
>
> Considering that the next version of the 'top tier' Redhat
> is going to be optimized for Oracle 8i, it's a fair bet
> that Oracle works with glibc2.1.
But how do you know the version that I have *now* works with glibc2.1?
Unless you're saying that Oracle will offer a free upgrade path
because I broke the OS by upgrading to the new "drop-in" glibc...
maybe they do, I haven't checked.
-N.
--
"These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. After unzipping,
these files can be viewed in any text editor, including all versions of
Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer." [Microsoft website]
< http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~navindra/editors/ >
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:41:23 -0600
In article <38d091fc$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
@
@>In article <38cf141b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
@>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
@>> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
@>>
@>>
@>>
@>> HEY EVERYONE --- Standby for McCoy to tell us how the sex was with
@>> someones
@>> mother. Its his standard MO.
@>>
@>>
@
@>Weenie.
@
@
@McCoy you asshole, crawl back into the hole you came out of and this time
@stay
@there.
@
@
@_____________
@Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@
Maybe you should change your name to Hackfield?
Followups set.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://web2.airmail.net/dbrandon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Yay! (was: Giving up on NT)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:56:43 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:03:36 -0600...
...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Seriously, though, Emacs *isn't* that hard to pick up. And once you learn
> > it, you'll rapidly discover that it eclipses nearly every other editor out
> > there. I've found over the years that Emacs suits for almost everything I
> > do -- coding, word-processing, editing, sorting, searching, even basic
> > web-surfing and news reading.
>
> A matter of hours?
>
> I mean, seriously, is it really necessary to have to LEARN my text editor?
Let me guess: You're an adept of the Tab-Left-Down-Repeat school of
code reindentation?
mawa
--
The danger of the haphazard application of computer technology to
situations that are really getting along just fine in the first place
should be apparent to all.
-- Art Medlar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:56:56 -0600
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What the press release doesn't quite adequately say is that this is a
> > transparent process that happens in the background. Links are not
created
> > manually, the OS finds identical duplicate files and coalesces them into
a
> > single file with links without any user interaction.
>
> What happens if you then modify one of these files and want to keep
> the other unchanged? Will the system automatically split them for you
> when you start changeing one "copy"?
As the long arguments in many other threads have pointed out. Yes.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:52:00 -0600
Drestin Black wrote:
[stupid nonsense snipped]
So what? The point is, no one on the NETWORK will have ROOT
privilieges as in windows.
This is NOT the same as "administrator" in NT. Most NT shops
give the users administrative rights anyhow, because windows is
such a pain in the ass to use as a multi user system.
No one needs or gets root in unix.
For home users ... oh wait ... home users don't use linux, right
Drestin?
As usual, completely full of shit.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:55:30 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:32:09 GMT, Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It wont take 10 man hours of labor to recompile Oracle, just
>> a few minutes. It's not like you hand compile the thing. OTOH,
>> you will gain more interesting information about the product
>> and be given a tool to minimize problems.
>
>Oh wow. Even the GNU stuff take a few minutes to get through just the
>./configure stage. Somehow I don't think Oracle source would even
So? It's not like that's something you actively have to babysit
either. Assuming you don't have to fix something, that's not
going to soak up developer time either.
>come with configure or compile out of the box. At the very least, one
They have to build it on something themselves. It's unlikely
they would create more work for themselves by having source
that wouldn't build on a stock Redhat system.
>would have to make sure all the source dependencies have been met.
>Did you check out the Netscape source when it was first released?
>Har.
You don't even need to go that far. Some projects are just
a mess. That has nothing to do with open vs. closed source.
>
>> THAT will reduce TCO in the long run.
>
>What will? Experience from compiling the source?
System test against all reasonable system lib permutations.
You can then tell users what to avoid instead of them
rediscovering it all for themselves.
>
>In the long long run, having the source code for everything is no
>doubt a Good Thing(TM), I'm not saying it's not. You have the option
>of fixing bugs or existing inherent problems (eg, Y2K) long after the
>company has gone down under. It might not be cheap, but at least you
>have the option.
>
>>>Of course, this is assuming that the glibc2 Oracle does in fact not
>>>work with glibc2.1, which admittedly I've been loath to test at this
>>>point.
>>
>> Considering that the next version of the 'top tier' Redhat
>> is going to be optimized for Oracle 8i, it's a fair bet
>> that Oracle works with glibc2.1.
>
>But how do you know the version that I have *now* works with glibc2.1?
That typically is the purpose of QA and why you would want
someone, somewhere to do all of this busywork. Barring that,
you could just upgrade to the latest revision or reinstall
the old version as it relinks the executables.
>Unless you're saying that Oracle will offer a free upgrade path
>because I broke the OS by upgrading to the new "drop-in" glibc...
>maybe they do, I haven't checked.
If you don't know already, why are you whining about all this?
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yay! (was: Giving up on NT)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:08:06 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) wrote:
>>
>> I mean, seriously, is it really necessary to have to LEARN my text editor?
>
>Let me guess: You're an adept of the Tab-Left-Down-Repeat school of
>code reindentation?
>
Huh? What happened to the "select code block and hit Tab" school of
reindentation?
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: 16 Mar 2000 20:08:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> What the press release doesn't quite adequately say is that this is a
:> transparent process that happens in the background. Links are not created
:> manually, the OS finds identical duplicate files and coalesces them into a
:> single file with links without any user interaction.
: What happens if you then modify one of these files and want to keep
: the other unchanged? Will the system automatically split them for you
: when you start changeing one "copy"?
The idea sounds very similar to copy-on-write for forked processes'
memory space. As long as both links are used in a read-only fashion,
only one copy of the file will physically exist. Once one of the
'files' is altered or written to, then the link is broken and a copy
is made instead, with the change is applied to the copy.
Even though this is coming from Microsoft, I'll still admit that it's
a clever idea. However, its goal is not to do symbolic links ala
Unix - it's goal is to merely save some disk space by collecting
duplicates in a fashion that is invisible to the user. It has some
problems to worry about, but they are mostly user-education problems
rather than technical ones. For example, if your filesystem is near
full, and you try to add "just one more byte" to a big file, you might
find you can't even though it looks like you should have enough room.
(If the big file is linked, then your attempt to write "one more byte"
ends up requiring a new copy of the file to be made.) What this means
is that when you see that your disk is "XX% full", the "XX" number can
be misleading. It is possible to make your disk "more than 100% full",
so to speak, in a way that is hidden to the user and will bite you in
the ass later. But, as long as people are aware of this, its actually
not a bad idea.
However, it isn't symbolic links. There are things about symbolic
links that are nice that this doesn't give you. With symbolic
links you can point a generic name at one of several versions of a
file, switching versions by just pointing the link at a different file.
This is common in the shared libraries in unix system. libc.so will
might point at libc5.0 or libc6.0, and so on. This is also common with
config files. i.e. Redhat Linux has this annoying feature where it
expects Xfree86's config file to be named /etc/X11/XF86Config, while the
default installation from Xfree86.org wants to see it as /etc/XF86Config.
This means that when I download and install a new version of XFree86 on
a Redhat system, it puts the config file in the wrong place. I get around
this by making sure I make a symbolic link first so that /etc/XF85Config
and /etc/X11/XF86Config are actually the same file and it doesn't matter
which name you call it by.
I wonder if it is possible to merge the two ideas into one filesystem.
It would be nice if real symbolic links and 'copy-on-write' links could
be implemented together in the same way.
(Or it might make more sense to merge hardlinks with copy-on-write
links and leave symbolic links out of it...)
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:11:04 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:52:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:35:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:47:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
><[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>>>On 15 Mar 2000 17:13:50 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> And even on the new machine, it doesn't recognise the Logitech
>>>> scrolling mouse I've got.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Win98 SE does fine with MY Logitech ScrollMouse Model M-BA47 (on the
>>>bottom).
>>>
>>>Win98 regular did fine with the diskettes that came with mouse. You
>>>DID try them didn't you?
>>
>> What if the user doesn't have those disks anymore. This actually
>> turned up with one of the inlaws. Once they lost a driver disk
>> they were rather at a loss.
>
>
>http://www.logitech.com
>
>Is your friend.
I wasn't talking about ME. I was talking about all those
OTHER end users for which a virtual trip to logitech is
not as simple or trivial as you or I think it is.
>
>Oh BTW even without the drivers the mouse does function. It is just
>the advanced functions that don't work. IOW you are not left mouse
>less. You still have a 2 button mouse.
The only mouse I've not managed to get a Linux to acknowledge
is a USB mouse and that's a little expectable at this point.
>
>
>One last thing. Does your wheelmouse function, wheel and all, under
>ANY Linux distribution right out of the box without having to use
>IMWheel or some similar program?
Does your wheelmouse function completely out of the box without
a non-generic driver? NO, of course it doesn't.
>
>Corel, Caldera, SuSE, TurboLinux current versions of all do not and
>last time I looked there were no Logitech Linux drivers included with
>the product (no surprise there) and you had to depend upon a program
>another person wrote to get all the features you paid for.
>
>Typical Linux.
You didn't pay for features. Corel didn't write them. Neither
did Caldera, Suse or Redhat. They just packaged them together.
This is functionally no different from having drivers delivered
on the same CD as Win98, or having to go hunting elsewhere for
that functionality.
>
>
>
>
>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> For this kind of user, a reference version that is no less than
>> 6 months old makes much more sense. Linux and FreeBSD deliver
>> such a thing, Microsoft won't.
>
>What kind of double speak is that?
>
>IOW what are you trying to say?
'drivers built into the OS' are EASIER to deal with, especially
for the novice than any arrangement where they have to futz
with something else.
Someone who can't manage to look for "wheel mouse linux" in a
web search engine is capable of having trouble with Win9x even
with all of it's bells, whistles and shiny happy applets. Any
point at which Win9x ceases to strictly be a console will likely
confound them.
Win9x simplicity is very much overhyped and overrated.
Once you idiot proof a system, a better idiot will come along.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:13:57 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:59:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:36:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>It only counts for people who are capable of downloading
>>>a file from the Web.
>>
>> That leaves out a lot of Windows users... <snicker>
>
>Or people who would rather be running the latest video drivers for
>their cards under Windows, instead of down loading anywhere from 12 to
>25 files just to get Xfree 4.0.
How is downloading 20 files more difficult than downloading 1?
Although that is incorrect. The source for Xfree 4.0 is 3 files.
>
>http://www.xfree.org/4.0/Install2.html#2
>
>For the brave at heart :)
>
>
>Is True Type and font aliasing/smoothing finally supported out of the
>box?
Yup.
Although that is an artificial need brought about primarily
by those that insist that anything not Windows be a Windows
clone.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 16 Mar 2000 20:20:03 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:03:36 -0600, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I can fire up TextPad for Windows, which is one of the best text editors
>around (IMHO, syntax highlighting, and much, much more) and I am up and
>running in a matter of SECONDS and doing all that Emacs does and more.
Except for the part about running on Solaris, AIX, VMS, Linux, Amiga, and
just about every other OS ever made.
Hey there are good editors on Windows, some of them are even free (as in
beer...I like PFE). But all the world is _not_ Windows Chad.
>There's probably a few, if not more, things that Emacs does that TextPad
>doesn't, but I would probably never be able to find them, let alone
>master them in Emacs anyhow.
>I'm not sure, though, it's possible TextPad has much more than Emacs, which
>is an equally likely case.
So, what you're saying is that you have no idea what Emacs can do and
probably don't even know this "TextPad" that well. But, hey, you are THE
MAN and you are here to Educate! The! Heretics! so you're not going to
let a mere lack of knowledge stand in the way of your declaring that
NOBODY should need to learn the advanced features of an editor, not even
programmers or writers who make their living sitting in front of an editor
all day since YOU don't see the need.
You're a buffoon Chad.
>However, I think it's ludicrous for you guys to consider it acceptable that
>I have to learn and train to use a text editor for some of the most basic
>things when, in a GUI, I can be using them in seconds with little training.
We don't give a shit what you learn, Chad. You clearly don't either.
But, just in case you might be interested in an actual advantage of Emacs
over TextPad, I'll point out that I learned Emacs once, under OS/2, and
have been able to continue using it for years now under Linux, Solaris,
and Windows NT. I'd say the learning time has more than paid for itself
by now.
>This specific case, a GUI is much better than a CLI.
Emacs has a GUI buffoon-boy.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:20:15 -0800
Peter Ammon wrote:
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > Uh huh.
> > Please explain which superior products they killed (and how).
>
> Go. They displayed an interest in developing software for Go's
> handheld, then had their engineers get all the information they could
> and never called Go again. Microsoft then announced their own handheld,
> based on Palm Windows, and strong-armed Compaq and some other OEMs who
> were interested in working with Go to drop the relationship. When it
> became apparent that Go was no longer viable, Microsoft dropped
> development of Palm Windows...if they ever developed it at all.
>
So this Toshiba I have that runs Windows95 for Pens must not exist right?
Windows 3.11 and 95 for pens was developed and shipped. However the systems
didn't sell well to customers. Thats why it died.
>
> > Please explain how they set computing back 5 - 10 years.
> > Please explain how they rammed anything down your throats.
>
> Internet Explorer! Have you forgotten so soon?
>
> -Peter
I recall Netscape shooting blowing it yes. However I also recall MS paying
people to use IE. So I wont debate the subject.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: 16 Mar 2000 20:31:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8arad4$1d47$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> BTW, you might want to think twice before you say something like "BestBuy
>> (where the more informed consumer shops)". In my opinion, informed consumers
>> shop mostly online and in specialized computer stores like Microcenter.
>>
>> Circuit City and BestBuy are hardly acceptable to informed consumers.
> Notice I said "more informed" More informed does not necessarily = totally
> informed.
> You would have to admit that the guy who buys computer related stuff from
> BestBuy or CompUSA has a *little* more clue than the guy who buys from
> Wal-Mart, yes?
It depends. If I'm in walmart and I see a piece of software that I want,
I'll certianly purchase it there rather than going out of my way to shop
somewhere else for the same item.
Paradoxical, isnt it?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:36:28 GMT
On 10 Mar 2000 13:36:40 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 21:21:18 GMT, George Richard Russell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>>Hmm, where is linux most used, and doesn't Linuxes support concentrate on areas
>>where it is extensively supported? Your going to find Ethernet drivers easier
>>than USB ones. Thats a nice server / desktop split right there.
>
>Hard to answer, the worlds changing rapidly. I use it as a server/desktop.
>
>Why is it a split ? I dont have a single piece of usb hardware, its not a
>problem for me.
For desktop users (Imacs!) Modern PC's! Its a problem. Roll on 2.4
Its a split since most servers do not have USB hw and many ( increasing %)
desktops do.
[snip]
>>>>and its not be written yet.
>>>No George I do not, *your* printer is your problem.
>>
>>And a few other thousand users, yep, who have to reboot to use all their
>>hardware.
>Gee George you get around, thousands huh ?
An underestimate - its a common, cheap and popular range of printers, all of
which have greater functionality under Windows. and DOS. Any OS with vendor
supplied drivers.
>>Disagree with Terry's opinion, become a wintroll. How droll.
>Do you deny you are a troll George ?
>You don't know much about Linux and you're expousing the same old wintroll
>arguments.
Whats to know about Linux? Being a user since 1996, and registered it. 61117.
Shall I tell you my kernel compile options, defualt shell, filesystem layout,
or what to prove what I know about Linux.
I've been snipping your arguments in vim, with ESC, num dd<ret> to trim num
lines. I know Linux quite well, thank you.
>If you're really NOT a troll, I do sincerely apologise.
Glad to hear it.
>>
>>This post brought to you courtesy of Linux 2.2.12, slrn, and vim.
>So what ?
>All this proves is that Wintrolls can install Linux.
I thought all the wintrolls bitched about how install failed?
>>
>>>>>Your totally, completely 100% *incorrect*.
>>>>
>>>>What, If everyone walks away, Linux will remain perpetually up to date and
>> ^^^^
>>>>viable? Nup. Other people could make it so, but people still need to do so.
>>>This statement shows scant knowledge of Linux George.
>>
>>How so, Terry?
>Because developers won't walk away, they do this because they have embraced
>Free Software they have a passion for it. Thats why.
Developers have walked away. The creators of GIMP did so - and development
stalled. It was high profile application, so it was taken over. Its not always
so - some apps have stalled incomplete for ages - the WP, Maxwell, comes to
mind.
>But what kind of developers George ?
>You're thinking commercial, I'm thinking Free Software.
Those who get jobs, different interests, bored, married, RSI....
>>>>Without developers. adaptation ceases. Without users, who will become
>>>Linux is not short of developers, I assure you Geoege.
>>
>>Well, I know that, yet somehow every major project asks for more volounteers to
>>code, test, document, create artwork, package and so one, and progress is not
>>made equally well in all areas.
>Of course not progress is not equally made in all areas. Depends on the people,
> available time available expertise etc.
IOW, how bad the shortage of developers in that area is. Few write docs,
translate, or create artwork.
>>>>disatisfied enough to change something?
>>>Linux exists, its NOT Windows, your model does not fit.
>>
>>Yet, after it left the disc of Linus for the ftp site, there were users, who
>>were dissatisfied (IDE only? No net drivers?) and wrote them. No users, no
>>developers. Simply really.
>This is ancient history, the fact Linux is where it is now, shows there is no
>lack of developers, or users.
That it has incomplete hw support shows a lack of (interested) developers.
That it is not yet targetted by (every | most | many) ISV shows a lack of users.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
