Linux-Advocacy Digest #712, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 15:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Forrest Gehrke)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Trevor Fuson")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
("Chuck Swiger")
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Producing Quality Code ("Mr. Rupert")
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... ("tony roth")
LinuxWaves.com relaunched (Kelechi Odu)
Of course it's a troll (was: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet
again) (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:54:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >Nope -- my only point was that anyone who is actively trying to kill off OS/2
> >is a nut... IBM did that themselves.
Even if that were granted, what did MS do? IBM management may
have been after only a good sized niche, one that MS would
never have missed. Why when analyzing IBM's "failure" you
do not question what MS did to totally freeze them out?
Why act as if there had been no Finding of Fact by Judge Jackson?
Might it have been possible that IBM management thinking
things through and hearkening back to their own toils with
DOJ, would never have dreamed that MS would flout the law
to prevent any inroads to MS' monopoly?
MS would not have been in the dock today had they refrained
from preventing PC vendors from selling a PC with anything
but MS OS and had they done the very simple thing of providing
ports of their Office Suite for OS/2 as they did for the Mac.
The DOJ could not have touched them and their profitability
and meteoric stock rise would have been virtually unaffected.
Their Win2K might be even worse off than it is today, but
like you have said about IBM, they have done most of that
to themselves.
//
------------------------------
From: "Trevor Fuson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:33:38 -0800
abraxas wrote in message <8atve7$ils$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When you upgrade to Windows 2000 from Windows NT 4.0, you may be told by
Windows 2000 that these network adapters will not be supported: 3Com
EtherLink 905x 10/100 series of Adapters; Compaq Ethernet or Fast Ethernet
PCI Adapters; DEC FDDI Controller PCI (Defpa) Adapters; HP EN1207D-TX PCI
10/100 Fast Ethernet Adapters; Intel EtherExpress PRO/10 Adapters; Intel
Pro/100 Intelligent Server Adapters (I960). Yet after installation, you may
find that they work anyway. Microsoft says you might have to reset any
static network settings.
Things such as this constitute as a Top 50 Bug? Is this even a bug?
------------------------------
From: "Chuck 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: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:13:35 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy John C. Randolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
[ ... ]
> Mike Paquette was a principal developer of NeXTTime, which sure as hell
> *was* a replacement for quicktime. (except that it performed much
> better, and had a far cleaner API.) FYI, NeXTTime was also the first
> multimedia framework which inclueded wavelet compression for video. The
> man knows the math, he knows the code, he's done this *particular*
> reverse-engineering task before, and he has several orders of magnitude
> more coding cred than you.
You're being optimistic, John, if you're willing to suggest that JEDI
has any noteworthy coding credits. Oh, maybe he actually did write so
much as a single line of source code in an open source project, but I
wouldn't be surprised to learn otherwise.
After all, there's a nearly perfect correlation between people who are
willing to ignore the plain truth when it contradicts their petty
little arguments to denigrate the accomplishments of others, and an
individual who has zero accomplishments of their own.
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: 20 Mar 2000 10:29:59 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>So, teaching a user to use TeX is much easier than teaching them to use
>>Word, right?
>
not Tex, but Latex is really easy. It is like a markup language. if
you can do HTML, you can do Latex.
If you can not write HTML, then you have no brains and stick to word.
everything I write is in Latex, my documents are cool looking, do
not depend on one platform, and written in plain text, not some
binary format that only one company controls.
with Latex, with one command I can convert my text to postscript or
HTML or pdf. try that with brain dead word.
Latex is good for you, learn it. at work, Latex is my secret
weapon, I produce such good documents and web pages using it,
that no one else using word can match, and with speed they can
not figure out how I do it. While the moron next to me is
manually adding spaces and extra lines to make their document
look better, I am allready done and on to a new project.
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:32:49 -0600
How about providing a short bio: years programming, OSes, types of
applications, size of applications/projects, number of programmers
involved with project, etc.. This will us understand your perspective.
--
Mr Rupert
mr_organic wrote:
>
> THE PROBLEM
> -----------
>
> As readers of my previous rants probably know by now, I have emarked
> on something of a Jihad against sloppy programming. The target of my
> ire at the moment is the seething mass of Windows "developers", most
> of whom know next to nothing about good software design. However, my
> previous posts are unfair in that they give the impression that
> Windows programmers are stupid, lazy, and incompetent. This is unfair
> and prejudicial, and I apologize.
>
> However, I think many points I raised in my posts are valid. A recent
> article in The Atlantic (find it at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/digicult/dc2000-03-15.htm) detailed
> some of the concerns cropping up about the quality of software in
> general. It seems clear that software is dropping in quality overall,
> not improving. And this is probably as true of Linux as of any other
> mass-market operating system. By *why* is this happening?
>
> It's easy to blame Microsoft (but accurate, since they espouse methods
> and designs to contribute to bad code); they have the hightest profile
> in the industry. More people come into contact with their software,
> so more people are exposed to the bugs. The various Unixes have their
> fair share of bugs, but they tend to escape wider notice because they
> are not as widely deployed. However, this is changing as Linux
> charges into the homes and offices of millions of people. Now, when
> Linux has a significant bug, it bites a lot of people.
>
> At base, the problem is a cultural one -- we are not training
> programmers correctly, regardless of the platform they use. The
> software industry today does not reward stable, carefully-crafted
> programs; it rewards newness, whiz-bang features, and layers of
> eye-candy. In short, *potential* is rewarded, not *execution*.
> Programmers are mercilessly ridden to meet marketing-driven deadlines,
> which means that they tend to focus on things like slick GUIs and less
> on architecture and maintainability.
>
> Unix tends to have less of a problem than Windows in this regard for a
> couple of reasons: one, Unix programmers are generally more
> technically adept than Windows programmers, and consequently produce
> better code; two, the architecture of Unix tends to promote "correct"
> code more than Windows does. Complexity leads to instability (in
> computer systems as in so much else in life), so a good rule of thumb
> is "simpler is better". However, modern operating systems are almost
> unbelieveably complex. Windows 2000 is reputed to have between thirty
> and sixty million lines of code. Linux has nowhere near that kind of
> bloat, but it still weighs in at several million lines of code (if you
> include things like the X Window system and essential system
> utilities).
>
> One place where Unix has a leg up on Windows is in terms of system
> calls. Generally, the fewer system calls you expose, the more stable
> the operating system will be (because simpler tends to be better).
> The *BSD's and Linux expose a few hundred system calls; Windows 2000
> exposes several *thousand*. It's not hard to see why this can lead to
> trouble.
>
> Compounding the problem is the proliferation of GUIs. It's no
> accident that software quality has been declining in direct proportion
> to the popularity of GUIs. Graphical environments are notoriously
> hard to "get right" -- there is no commonly-agreed-upon basis for
> their design or implementation. A graphical environment is by its
> very nature less precise than a command-line interface -- when a user
> sees an icon of a painter's palette, for example, he or she usually
> assumes that this icon is in some way related to a graphics or drawing
> program. While this works for most folks, other people in the world
> would be baffled by such a thing -- say aborigines or Eskimos, who
> have a totally different conception of artistic endeavor than do other
> people. What would a meaningful icon be to them? Or is a GUI even
> appropriate? The whole "desktop metaphor" makes a lot of assumptions
> that aren't necessarily valid.
>
> The problem is that programmers are trying to solve problems that are
> not well-defined, using operating systems that themselves are overly
> complex and ambiguous. This problem has been snowballing for years,
> until today we have an enormous base of code that is neither stable,
> robust, nor easily fixable. And this problem will continue to fester
> until something dramatic is done to arrest it.
>
> The solution must begin with us -- software engineers. Notice that I
> use the word "engineer" rather than "programmer" or "developer". This
> is deliberate. We must recognize that our craft requires the skills
> of an engineer as well as an artist. We must realize that careful
> design and rigorous attention to detail is as important (or more so!),
> than working on "sexy" problems. But at the same time we need to take
> pride in ourselves as artisans, and produce code that not only
> *works*, but is as elegant, maintainable, and clean as we can make it.
>
> This will not be an easy thing to do; most of us are employed by
> companies that only pay lip-service to software quality. They will
> sacrifice stability in a second if it means gaining market advantage.
> Marketers and salespeople will continue to define software in terms of
> feature-lists and gee-whiz graphics. What can we do, short of
> revolting entirely? We have to make a living, don't we?
>
> My suggestion is this: realize your power. Software engineers are the
> most sought-after asset in the world today. Entire companies rise or
> fall depending on the quality of their software engineers. If each of
> us, individually, makes it a point to produce good, quality code, then
> the effect will propagate quickly. But to do it ourselves is not
> enough; we must insist on it from others as well. And this is the
> difficult part. We must stop accepting lousy software and hold the
> developers responsible. If a company produces software with bugs,
> they should be held as accountable as any company that produces a
> defective good. (Which is why UCITA is such an evil thing, but that's
> a topic for another thread.)
>
> The "Open Source" revolution of recent years has shown people that
> peer-review is an excellent way to get quality software. To be sure,
> much Open Source software is buggy; but relentless peer-review
> produces software that is demonstrably less buggy than most commercial
> alternatives. And don't be fooled by "performance tests" -- a faster
> product is not necessarily better, if the slower one is of higher
> quality. All pure speed means is that a buggy product will crash
> faster than ever before.
>
> The odd thing about all this is that you'd think companies like Apple
> and Microsoft would *want* this focus on quality code regardless of
> marketing or sales pressure. Better code means lower supoort costs
> later (and better customer relations!). Still, vendors seem to be
> stuck in a "get the code out the door at any cost" mentality. This is
> most prevalent in the Windows space, where competition is very hot.
> However, this problem is also emerging in the Internet space; it is
> evident in the badly-written Javascript, VBScript, PHP, or CGI scripts
> that infest the web. E-commerce sites assure us that our information
> is private, then mutter red-faced when crackers crack their sites and
> steal credit-card information.
>
> In the coming century, the consequences of bad software design are
> going to be more impactful than ever before. We bet our very lives on
> software -- it controls airplanes (and air traffic control centers);
> it controls nuclear reactors and utility companies; it controls water
> delivery and waste-disposal; it controls all finance and securities
> movement. In fact there is no major part of our life that software
> does not have a critical part in. Technologies like Jini and
> Bluetooth promise to make software an even-more-integral part of our
> lives, so much that it will become essentially invisible and
> ubiquitous.
>
> But this scenario shows how calamitous bad software can be -- it's
> only an annoyance when we lose a corporate memo or a PowerPoint
> presentation; it means the loss of life if a medial system goes down
> or two airplanes cannot determine each other's position in the skies.
>
> THE ENGINEER'S PART
> -------------------
>
> The upshot is that we need to take our craft *seriously*. Hackers we
> may be, and proud of it, but we need to embrace the *true* hackish
> nature, not just the faux-geek trappings. A true hacker knows that
> producing good code is often boring, repetitive, and unexciting; it
> means hours and hours of groveling over code to find a misplaced comma
> or missing semicolon; it means being open-minded enough to know when
> your approach is wrong and allow others to help fix your code. It
> means valuing correctness and stability over all other things, period.
>
> One of the central tenets of the Hippocratic Oath that doctors must
> take is, "First, do no harm." I think this is a superb rule for
> software engineers to follow as well.
>
> THE CORPORATE PART
> ------------------
>
> But we as engineers can only effect so much change; the corporations
> which employ us have got to do their part. Unfortunately, the
> situation today is not promising. Most corporations do not answer to
> their customers at all, but rather their shareholders; and today's
> shareholder is interested in only one thing: short-term monetary
> gain. The quality of the product in question is only important
> insofar as it furthers the goal of making money. Software is only as
> good as it needs to be to make money (which unfortunately isn't very
> good).
>
> There are no easy answers for companies. The only way to produce
> stable, robust software is to *take time* and do it right. But
> companies do not want to spend the time -- lost time is lost money and
> lost opportunity. Better to produce a shoddy hack quickly than a
> robust solution later. Let the users be your beta-testers and make
> them pay for the privilege. Patent everything and threaten to sue
> anyone who treads upon your domain. Using this tactic, they ensure
> that lousy software *stays* lousy because no one can legally fix it.
>
> We have arrived at a time when a company must produce bad software to
> prosper; writing good software takes too much time and effort.
> Shareholder value is not enhanced by producing robust code; therefore
> they will not produce robust code. Money, in this as in so much else
> in the modern world, is king.
>
> WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US?
> -------------------------
>
> Were it not for projects like Linux and the *BSDs, the situation would
> be grim indeed. The Windows platform is for all intents and purposes
> a lost cause -- Microsoft has no intention of opening the source, and
> no real incentive to fix the numerous problems themselves. Apple is
> in a similar situation, but they benefit somewhat from the fact that
> their new OS is based on FreeBSD, and can benefit from review of that
> code. (Whether they will give back to the community in the same
> measure they have taken from it remains to be seen.) The only other
> viable commerical OS -- BeOS -- is just as closed as Windows is and
> presents the same essential problems.
>
> We, as software engineers, must commit to making the Open Source
> operating systems -- whether Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, or other
> -- as robust and well-designed as we possibly can. We must not let
> money rule our release schedules or feature-sets. We must not get
> drawn off into feature-wars with commercial packages. In the best of
> all possible worlds, there would be a Good Engineering Seal of
> Approval and no piece of software would make it into a distribution
> without it. The GESA (as I call it) would encompass areas like
> stability (no buffer overruns!), security, and "correctness" of code.
>
> In many ways we are the architects of the new century. The decisions
> we make -- and do not make -- will profoundly impact the society of
> which we are a part. We need to realize this and act accordingly.
>
> Submitted for your consideration.
>
> Regards,
>
> mr_organic
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:13:57 -0800
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
More marketing propaganda. The latest TCO research seems to indicate
that NT is one of the more expensive operating systems. Even more
expensive than UNIX.
url please or is this more typical bs for mlw!
------------------------------
From: Kelechi Odu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LinuxWaves.com relaunched
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:41:21 +0100
Hi all,
I wish to announce that LinuxWaves.com (http://www.linuxwaves.com) has
been relaunched. Bugs have been fixed and browser problems solved.
LinuxWaves.com is a new Linux Portal that features among other things;
° A Linux Bookstore
° Banner Exchange for Linux Sites
° FREE email
° Download links
° Linux links Directory
° Community Forum etc etc.
Visit LinuxWaves.com at http://www.linuxwaves.com and have a lot of
fun...
Kelechi Odu
http://www.linuxwaves.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Of course it's a troll (was: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. --
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:44:46 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:47:22 GMT...
...and Jeff Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gnu programmers don't suck, but they really piss me off. I believe they
> are being really irresponsible towards the linux community by releasing
> programs which are so hard to install. Has anyone tried installing
> Gnucash? This bastard appears to require the installation of six other
> packages: XmHTML-1.1.5.tar.gz, eperl-2.2.14.tar.gz, guile-1.3.tar.gz,
> lesstif-0.88.1.tar.gz, nana-2.3.tar.gz, swig1.1p5.tar.gz. WTF! If a
> program requires this much bullshit to install it should not have a
> version number of 1.x. A version number this high is very misleading to
> anyone who want to install this software. A program in not complete or
> deserving of a 1.x version until there is a relatively easy way to
> install it. It seems that the Gnome programmers are focusing too much
> on technical coolness while leaving the user behind.
This is nonsense. Unix software tends to have lots of dependencies,
because programs do not tend to ship stuff that is shared between
program packages. There are package management systems like apt-get or
rpmfind which will fetch and install the dependencies automatically.
A great number of dependencies does signify that a program reuses a
lot of code that others have written. Nothing more, nothing less.
BTW, there is some inherent contradiction in your "example". If
GNUcash is a GNOME program like you claim, it can't depend on LessTif.
GNOME programs do not use LessTif, they use GTK+ and (duh) GNOME.
mawa
--
Around the corner lives a hacker with a terminal
And on his Web page is a PNG of RMS
He likes to keep his Sun workstation clean
It's a clean machine...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge
yet again)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:45:31 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:05:10 GMT...
...and David D.W. Downey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> > Would this be a good time to mention IBM's dirty deeds, and how they
> > often "squished" the smaller companies and spread lies in the name of
> > profit?
> >
>
> They had a good teacher in Microsoft.
You need to learn more history.
mawa
--
They say that Jesus walked upon the water. What they don't tell us is
that it was in Iceland. Few people know this. In Iceland, we all can
walk upon the water.
-- Joel Frank, NPR
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: 20 Mar 2000 19:47:09 GMT
On 20 Mar 2000 10:29:59 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>>>So, teaching a user to use TeX is much easier than teaching them to use
>>>Word, right?
>
>not Tex, but Latex is really easy. It is like a markup language. if
>you can do HTML, you can do Latex.
Two things :
(1) you misattributed that quote. I responded with something
similar to you.
(2) TeX is a typesetting engine, though it's often used to mean "plain TeX".
In this sense, I consider LaTeX to be a form of TeX. LaTeX is more high
level, hence better suited for most things ( ie everything except macro
writing IMO )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:06:17 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
wrote:
> Heck this is like real time chatting here Gary.
>
> You and the other person responded exactly as I had predicated and you
> can't accept the truth.
>
> Reading the LinoNuts is getting far too easy these days. I think I
> need a new hobby.
>
> Steve
>
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:11:37 -0500, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>>
>>> And I rest my case yet again.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>
>>And you are a fucking asshole
>>
>>Gary
>
Let me see If I have this straight.
Person A gripes about difficulties installing program via a tarball.
Person B says that all the linux advocate will say "why didn't you do it the easy way?"
as if this was some how a cop out by the linux folks.
Why wouldn't you do it the easy way? after all, that's why the rpm is there.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:16:32 -0800
In article <YI1B4.1868$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Are you trying to tell me that users do not need to be trained to use
> Linux?
>> > And are you claiming that such training costs less than Windows?
>>
>> Why would it cost more? If the user was already indoctrinated in any one
>> system then all bets are off.
>
> So, teaching a user to use TeX is much easier than teaching them to use
> Word, right?
Depends on what it is they need to do, for writing a letter to mom, word
suffices. For some simple office tasks, word suffices. For typesetting
documents, word does not suffice.
Of course, if all you need is standard office style stuff, then the proper
comparison would be Word vs Wordperfect|Applix|StarOffice etc, not TeX,
But you knew that allready.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:23:03 -0800
In article <GhfB4.1993$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:bEYA4.357$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Such a program could operate under Unix as well. Your mail aliases are
> just
>> > as accessible to a binary program (and more and more binary releases are
>> > coming out these days).
>>
>> Can you give me an example of such a virus running under linux?
>
> Typical attitude. Because it hasn't been done, means it can't be done.
No, merely an example of the real world, upsetting the marketers world
Virii are possible under Linux, there will certainly be some in the future. But
the main point is that M$ is far more susceptible to them than Linux. The
apparant lack of any Linux "macro virus" a la Melissa is simply more evidence
of same.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:29:58 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson) wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>>Is it terribly difficult to consider that most operating systems
>>have their niche which they fill quite nicely, leaving room in the
>>world for the others? I mean, its not like anyone is still running
>>AmigaDOS or anything...:)
>>
> Right.... I'm not anyone, so I guess I'm ok. :)
>
> As a matter of fact, AmigaOS is safer than W95/98 when it comes to viruses
> or at least worms. There's no Internet Explorer with ActiveX and no Outlook
> that blindly runs attached programs...
>
> /Stefan
Unless you use AmigaGuide :) which would execute commands in the document
blindly. *ouch*
Nice idea, but I think html is better :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:32:49 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <8b33ap$gfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>
>>I often wonder why AmigaDOS was never considered for an embedded solution.
>>I mean, it's tiny, runs on 68000 hardware (which is still a very popular
>>architecture for some applications, (please, no Z80 vs. 68k arguments :-),
>>and it's awfully fast.
>
> Perhaps it offers little or nothing, and is therefore bloat, in an
> embedded environment.
I think that would depend on how small an embedded environment :)
I wouldn't pick it to run on a Pic, but my first Amiga 500 had a slower
processor and far less ram than my palm pilot does :)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
